LIBRARY  OF  PRIiIClTON 


JUN  2  9  2007 


THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 


THE  PROPHECIES 


OF  /<>*  ' 

FEB  13  1926 


ZECHARIAH 


'%^CIAI  U^ 


WITH  SPECIAL  REFERENCE  TO  THE  ORIGIN  AND  DATE 
OF  CHAPTERS  9-14 


BY  / 

GEORGE  LIVINGSTONE  ROBINSON 

HEBBEW   FELLOW,   PRINCETON,  U.  S.  A. 


CHICAGO 

Zbc  XDlntverstt?  of  Cbfcago  press 

1896 


A    DISSERTATION    PBESENTED    TO    THE     PHILOSOPHICAL    FACULTY    OF 

LEIPZIG,    FOR     THE     PURPOSE     OF     OBTAINING     THE 

DEGREE    OF    DOCTOR    OP    PHILOSOPHY 


•  '. 


[Reprinted  from   The  Amk.kioan  Journal  of  Semitic  Languages  and 
Literatures,  Vol.  XII.,  Nos.  1  and  2.    Chicago,  111.) 


OUTLINE. 

LiTEBATDRE. 5 

Introduction:    The  History  of  Critical  Opinion.     -        -        -         10 

1.  Contents  of  the  Book  of  Zechariah.     ------     1.5 

2.  The  Pre-Exilic  Hypothesis  Examined.       -----         16 

1)  The  Historical  Argiiineut,  or  Argument  from  Historical 

Allusions. 

2)  The  Christologieal  Argument,  or  Argument   from  Mes- 

sianic Prophecj'. 

3)  The  Psychological  Argument,  or  Argument  from  Parallel- 

isms in  Thought  and  Language  between  Zech.  9-14 
and  the  other  prophets. 

3.  The  Post- Zechabian  Hypothesis  Examined.  -        -         -         -     52 

1)  The  Linguistic  Argument 

2)  The  Historical  Data  alleged  in  favor  of  a  Grseco-Macca- 

beau  date. 

4.  The  Integrity  of  Zechariah  9-14. 75 

5.  The  Relation  of  Chapters  9-14  to  Zechariah  1-8.         -       -  -     83 
Sdmmary  and  Conolusion.  --------  93 


LITERATURE. 

[The  asterisks  bofore  certain  namos  indicate  tljat  the  works  of  these  autliors  are 
eepecially  valuable  from  a  critical  point  of  view.] 

1.    Adthors  Who  Advocate  a  Pre-Exilic  Origin  for  Zech.  9-14. 

♦Joseph  Mede,  Dissertationum  eccliasticarmn  triginfa  quibus  acce- 
dunt  fragmenta  sacra.  Londini,  1653;  Works,  -Ith  ed.,  Londou,  1677, 
pp.  786  sg.,  834. 

H.  Hammond,  Paraphrase  and  Annotations,  etc.  6th  ed.,  London, 
1653,  III.,  pp.  135,  745. 

Rich.  Kidder,  Demonstration  of  the  Messias  in  which  the  truth  of  the 
Christian  religion  is  defended,  especially  against  the  Jews.  Loudon, 
1700;  2ded.,  1726,  pp.  76s<7. 

Wm.  Whiston,  Essay  toward  restoring  the  true  text  of  the  O.  T.  and 
for  vindicating  the  citations  made  thence  in  the  N.  T.  London,  1722, 
pp.  93  sg. 

*B.  G.  Flligge,  Die  Weissagungen,  welche  bei  den  Schriften  des  Pro- 
pheten  Sacharja  beygebogen  sind,  ilbersetzt  u.  kritisch  erldutert ;  nebst 
einigen  Abhandlungen,  Hamburg,  1784. — Idem,  Beitr&ge  zur  orient,  u. 
exeget.  Bibliothek,  etc.     Hamburg,  1787. 

*Wm.  Newcome,  An  attempt  towards  an  impi-oved  version,  metrical 
arrangement  and  an  explanation  of  the  twelve  mincer  prophets.  Lon- 
don, 1785;  new  ed.,  1836. 

G.  F.  Seiler,  Tlieolog.-krit.  Betrachtung  neuer  Schriften.  Erlangen, 
1786. 

J.  D.  Michaelis,  Neue  orient,  u.  exeget.  Bibliothek,  I.  GOttingen, 
1786. 

G.  L.  Bauer,  Die  kl.  Propheten  mit  Comm.  Leipzig,  1786-90. — Idem, 
Einleitung.     Nlirnberg,  1794. 

J.  C.  Doederlein,  Auserlesene  theolog.  Bibliothek.     Leipzig,  1787. 

Ch.  W.  Augusti,  Einleitung  in  das  A.  T.     Leipzig,  1806-29. 

*L.  Bertholdt,  Hist. -kr it.  Einleit.  in  sdmmtliche  kanonische  ?t.  apo- 
kryphisclie  Bucher  des  A.  u.  N.  T.     Erlangen,  IV.,  1814,  pp.  169783. 

*\V.  M.  L.  deWette,  Lehrbuch  der  hist.-krit.  Einleit.  in  das  A.  T. 
Eds.  1-3,  Berlin,  1817-29;  eds.  4^7  (in  which  the  post-exilic  origin  of 
chs.  9-14  is  advocated);  ed.  5,  Berlin,  1840,  I.,  pp.  343-7;  ed.  6  (post- 
humous), Berlin,  1852;  ed.  7  (E.  Schrader),  1869,  pp.  447  sq. 

Ed.  Forberg,  Comm.  crit.  et  exeget.  in  Zech.  italic,  part.  post.  Coburg, 
1824. 

*Roseumuller,  Scholia  in  V.  T.,  IV.    Lipsite,  1828;  VII.,  4,  pp.  257  sq. 

5 


6  THE    PROPHECIES    OF    ZECHAEIAH 

J.  A.  Theiner,  Comm.  ilber  die  hi.  Schrift.  Die  zicolf  kl.  Propheten. 
Leipzig,  1828. 

*F.  Hitzig,  Stud.  u.  Krit.,  18.30,  pp.  25-14.— Idem,  Die  zwolf  kl.  Pro- 
pheten. Leipzig,  1838;  2d  ed.,  1852;  ith  ed.,  besorgt  von  H.  Steiner, 
Leipzig,  1881,  pp.  333-410. 

Aug.  Knobel,  Der  Prophetismus  der  Hebrder.  Breslau,  1837,  II.,  pp. 
166  sq.,  280  sq. 

*H.  Ewald,  Die  Propheten  des  A.  B.  Stuttgart,  1840,  pp.  308  sg.,  389 
sq.;  2ded.,  1867-8. 

F.  J.  V.  D.  Maurer,  Comm.  gramm.  hist.  crit.  in  Prophetas  minores. 
Lipsise,  1840,  II.,  pp.  468  sq. 

Ed.  Meier,  Geschichte  der  poetischen  Nationalliteratur  der  Hebrder. 
Leipzig,  1856,  pp.  306  sg. — Idem,  Die  Bearbeituiig  der  zwolf  kl.  Prophe- 
ten von  Hitzig,  Maurer  und  Ewald,  iu  Theol.  Jahrbiicher  von  Zeller, 
lst-3d  vols.,  Tubingen,  1842-3. 

Herzfeld,  Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israel.  Braunschweig,  1847,  I.,  pp. 
280  sq'. 

*F.  Bleek,  Ueber  das  Zeitalter  imi  Sach.  Cap.  9-li;  Stud.  u.  Krit., 
1852,  pp.  247-332;  1857,  pp.  316 sq.,-  Einleit.  4th  ed.,  bearbeitet  von  J. 
Wellhausen,  Berlin,  1878;  5th  ed.,  1886;  6th  ed.,  1893. 

*E.  F.  J.  V.  Ortenberg,  Die  Bestandteile  des  Buches  Sach.   Gotha,  1859. 

C.  K.  J.  Buusen,  Die  Prophete^i.  Leipzig,  1860. — Idem,  Gott  in  der 
Geschichte,  I.,  pp.  449  sg. 

Sam.  Davidson,  Introduction  to  the  O.  T.     London,  1862-3. 

*W.  Pressel,  Kcnnmentar  zu  Hag.,  Sach.  u.  Maleachi.     Gotha,  1870. 

L.  Diestel,  Article  Sacharja  iu  Schenkel's  Bibellexicon,  1875. 

B.  Duhm,  Die  Theol.  der  Proph.  als  Grundlage  etc.  Bonn,  1875,  pp. 
72,  144,  202  sq. 

Ed.  Reuss,  La  Bible,  ancien  Test. ;  II,  Les  prophktes.  Paris,  1876, 
pp.  179  sq.,  349  sq. 

*H.  Steiner,  Die  zwolf  kl.  Propheten.    Leipzig,  1881.    (See  F.  Hitzig.) 

*C.  Bruston,  Histoire  critique  de  la  littiraturc  2}>'oph4tique  des 
H6breux.     Paris,  1881,  pp.  116  32. 

Sam.  Sharpe,  History  of  the  Hebreiv  nation  and  literature.  London, 
1882. 

*H.  Graetz,  Recension  iiber  Stade's  Deuterozacharja  in  Frankel's 
Monatschrift  fiir  die  Geschichte  u.  Wissenschaft  des  Judeutums;  1881, 
pp.  239  sq.,  277  sq.,  317. 

C.  v.  Orelli,  Die  dlteste  Wei.ssagung  von  der  Vollendung  des  Gottes- 
reiches.  Wieu,  1882,  pp.  272  .vq.,  327  .sq.-  Idem,  Ezechiel  u.  die  zwolf  kl. 
Proj>h.     Nurdlingeu,  1888. 

*F('rd.  Montet,  Etude  critique  sur  Ic  date  assignable  aux  six  derniers 
chap'dres  de  Zech.     Geneve,  1882. 

Ed  Riehm,  Article  Sacharja  in  HandwOrterljuch  des  bibl.  Alterthums; 
1875-84.— Idem,  Einleitung  (posthumous).     Halle,  1889. 


THE    PROPHECIES    OF    ZEOHARIAH  i 

H.  L.  Strack,  Einleit.  in  das  A.  T.,  in  Zockler's  Handb.  der  Theol. 
Wisseuschaften.     Nordlingen,  1888;  4;th  ed.,  Miinchen,  1896. 

H.  Schultz,  Alttestamentliclie  Theologie.  GOttingen,  4th  ed.,  1889, 
pp.  64  and  65. 

P.  W.  Farrar,  The  Minor  Prophets,  in  Men  of  the  Bible  Series.  New 
York. 

*G.  Griitzmacher,  Untersuchung  iiber  den  Ursprung  der  in  Zach. 
9-14  vorliegenden  Profetien  unter  besonderer  Beriicksichtigung  der 
zuletzt  darilber  vorgetragenen  Hypothese.     Berlin,  1892. 

K.  D.  Schlatter,  Einleitung  in  die  Bibel.  2d  ed.,  Stuttgart,  1894,  pp. 
266-73. 

Aug.  Dillmann,  Einleitung  in  das  A.  T.  u.  biblische  Theologie  (MS.). 
Berlin,  1894. 

2.    Authors  Who  Advocate  a  Post-Zeoharian   Origin   fob  Chs.  9-14. 

H.  Grotius,  Annotationes  in  V.  T. ;  1644;  ed.  Vogel  &  Doederlein, 
II,  Halle,  1676. 

*H.  Corrodi,  Versuch  einer  Beleuchtung  der  Geschichte  desjiidischen 
u.  christlichen  Bibelkanons,  I.     Halle,  1792,  p.  107. 

H.  E.  G.  Paulus,  Exeg.  Handb.  iiber  die  drei  ersten  Evangelien. 
Liibeck,  1805;  Leipzig,  1812;  Heidelberg,  1832;  pp.  117 sg. 

*J.  G.  Eichhorn,  Einleitung  in  das  A.  T.  3d  ed.,  1805;  4th  ed.,  1824; 
pp.421  sq.,  4448^. — Idem,  Uebersetzung  der  hebrdischen  Propheten,  1819. 

H.  P.  W.  Gramberg,  Krit.  Gesch.  der  Religionsideen  des  A.  T.  Ber- 
lin, 1830,  II.,  pp.  520  31  and  635-60. 

J.  H.  W.  Vatke,  Bibl.  Theol.  des  A.  T.  Berlin,  1835,  pp.  553  sg., 
especially  pp.  462  sq.  Aum. 

A.  Geiger,  Urschrift  u.  Uebersetzung  der  Bibel  in  ihrer  Abhdngig- 
keit  von  der  inneren  Entioicklung  des  Judentums.  Breslau,  1855,  pp. 
hhsq. 

*Fr.  Bottcher,  Neue  exeg.-krit.  Aehrenlese  zum  A.  T.  Leipzig,  1864; 
2d  ed.,  pp.  215  sg. 

*B.  Stade,  Lehrbuch  der  hebrdischen  Grammatik.  Leipzig,  1879. 
— Idem,  De  populo  Javan  parergon.  Gissfe,  1880  (Programm  zum  Gies- 
sener  Ludwigstage). — But  especially  Deuterozacharja,  Eine  krit.  Studie 
in  Zeitschr.  fiir  die  alttest.  Wissenschaft  {=ZATW);  Giessen,  1881-2,  pp. 
1-96,  151-72,  275-309. 

*A.  Kuenen,  Historisch-critisch  onderzoek  naar  het  onstaan  en  de 
verzameling  van  de  boeken  des  otiden  verbo7ids.  Leyden,  1863.  (1st  ed. 
in  favor  of  pre-exilic  origin  of  Zech.  9-14;  in  2d  ed.,  1889,  jjost-Zecharian; 
pp.  380  .sg.)    German  transl.,  Vol.  II.,  1892. 

*T.  K.  Cheyne,  Article  on  The  Date  of  Zech.  9-14  in  The  Jewish 
Quar.  Keview,  Vol.  I.,  1889. 

*H.  Graetz,  Zech.  14,  in  The  Jewish  Quar.  Review,  Vol.  III.,  1891. 

C.  H.  Cornill,  Einleitung  in  das  A.  T.     Freiburg,  1891,  pp.  196  s(/. 


8  THE    PROPHECIES    OF    ZECHARIAH 

S.  K.  Driver,  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  O.  T.  Eds.  1-3; 
New  York,  1891;  Edinburgh,  1891-2. 

*W.  Staerk,  Untersuchung  ilber  die  Komposition  u.  Abfassungszeit 
von  Zach.  9  bis  14,  mit  eingehender  Berucksichtigung  der  neuesten 
Hypothese.     Halle,  1891. 

*J.  Wellhausen,  Skizzen  u.  Vorarbeiten;  V.  Heft.  Berlin,  1892;  2d 
ed.,  1893. — Idem,  Article  Zechariah  in  Encyc.  Brit.,  IX.  ed. — Idem,  Pro- 
legomena zur  Geschichte  Israels.  Berlin,  1886,  pp.  438  sq. — Idem, 
Beurteilung  der  Schrift  von  Gh-af  v.  Baudissin,  '^Studien  zur  Religions- 
geschichte,"  in  Gottinger  gelehrte  Anzeigen.    Gottingen,  1877,  pp.  185  sq. 

*N.  I.  Kubinkam,  The  second  part  of  the  Book  of  Zechariah.  Basel, 
1892. 

*Karl  Marti,  Der  Prophet  Sach.  Freiburg,  1892.— Idem,  Stud.  u. 
Krit.,  1892,  Heft  2  uud  3. 

*A.  F.  Kirkpatrick,  The  Doctrine  of  the  Prophets.    London,  1892. 

*R.  Eckardt,  Der  Sprachgebrauch  von  Zach.  9-U;  ZATW,  1893,  pp. 
7&-109. 

*A.  K.  Kuiper,  Zacharia  0-14;  eene  exegetisch-critische  Studie. 
Utrecht,  1894. 

G.  Wildeboer,  De  Letterkunde  des  Oudeti  Verbonds  naar  de  tijds- 
orde  van  haar  outstaan.     Groningen,  1893,  pp.  517  sq. 

E.  Kautzsch,  Die  heil.  Schrift  des  A.  T.  ilbersetzt.  Freiburg-Leipzig, 
1894,  Beilagen,  pp.  203  sq. 

8.    Authors  Who  Defend  the  Unity  of  the  Prophecies  or  Zechariah. 

*J.  C.  Carpzov,  Critica  Sacra  V.  T.     Lipsi.ie,  1728,  pp.  859  sg. 

*  J.  H.  Bechhaus,  Ueber  die  Integritdt  der  proph.  Schriften  des  A.  B. 
Halle,  1796. 

Benj.  Blayney,  A  new  translation  of  the  propliecies  of  Zech..  ivith 
notes.     Oxford,  1797. 

J.  Jahn,  Einleitung  in  die  gOttl.  Biicher  des  A.  B.  Wien,  1802-3; 
2ded.,  pp.  669s<z.,  675sg. 

*F.  B.  Kdster,  Meletemata  critica  et  exeg.  in  Zecharice  prophetce 
partem  posteriorem,  capp.  IX-XIV,  pro  tuenda  eius  authentia.  Gottin- 
gen, 1818. 

F.  Ackermann,  Proph.  inin.  pjerpet.  annot.  ill.     Wien,  1830. 

*M.  W.  L.  de  Wette,  Einleitung  in  das  A.  T.;  eds.  4-7.  Berlin, 
1833,  1840.  1852,  1869. 

*E.  W.  Hengstenberg,  Die  Authentie  des  Daniels  u.  die  Integritdt 
des  Sach.  Berlin,  1836. — Idem,  Uhristologie  des  A.  T.  u.  Comm.  ilber 
die  mes.'iianischen  Weissagungen,  III.    3d  ed.,  Berlin,  1856,  pp.  243  ,sr/. 

A.  McCaul,  Rabbi  Kinichi  upon  the  Prophet  Zech.,  translated,  etc. 
London,  1837. 

H.  Hesselberg,  Die  zwGIf  kl.  Proph.     KOnigsberg,  1838. 

H.  A.  C.  Haveruick,  Einleitung  in  das  A.  T.     Erlaugen,  1839. 


THE    PROPHECIES    OF    ZECHARIAH  9 

*J.  D.  F.  Burger,  Etudes  ex4.get.  et  crit.  sur  le  prophMe  Zach.  Strass- 
burg,  18il. 

J.  Ch.  K.  V.  Hofmann,  Der  Schriftbeiceis.  Nordlingen,  1855,  II.,  pp. 
554:  sq.;  2d  ed.,  1860,  pp.  603  sg. — Idem,  Weissagung  m.  Erfulhmg ; 
1841-4. 

J.  G.  Herbst  (died  1836),  Historisch-Kritische  Einleitung  in  die  heil. 
Schriften  des  A.  T.,  hsgg.  von  B.  Welte.     Karlsruhe,  1840-M. 

E.  Henderson,  The  Minor  Prophets  with  Comm.,  etc.     London,  1845. 

F.  W.  C.  Unibreit,  Praktischer  Komm.  iiber  die  Propheten  des  A.  B. 
Hamburg,  1845,  Vol.  II.,  pp.  351  sq.,  451  sq. 

P.  Schegg,  Die  kl.  Projihefeii.     Regensburg,  1854-62. 

W.  Baumgarten,-Di'e  Nachtgesichte  Sacharjas.   Braunschweig,  1854-5. 

T.  V.  Moore,  The  Prophets  of  the  Restoration ;  new  translation  with 
notes.     New  York,  1856.     , 

H.  L.  Sandrock,  Prioris  et  posterioris  Zacharioe  partis  vaticinia  ab 
uno  eodemque  auciore  profecta.     Breslau,  1857. 

W.  Neumann,  Die  Weissagung  des  Sach.     Stuttgart,  1860. 

L.  Reinke,  Die  niessianische  Weissagung.     Giessen,  1859-62. 

*A.  Kohler,  Die  Weissagungen  Sach.,  Cap.  9-14.  Erlangen,  1861-3. — 
Idem,  Article  Sacharja  in  Herzog's  Realencyclopaedie,  2d  ed.,  Vol.  XIII. 

*J.  J.  Stahelin,  Die  niessianische  Weissagungen  des  A.  T.  Berlin, 
1847,  pp.  125  sq.,Yiisq. 

*Th.  Kliefoth,  Der  Prophet  Sach.  iibersetzt,  etc.     Schwerin,  1862. 

*J.  J.  S.  Perowne,  Article  Zechariah  in  Smith's  Diet,  of  the  Bible. 
London,  1863. 

C.  F.  Keil,  Einleitung  u.  Komm.  zum  A.  T. ;  III.,  4th  ed. — Idem,  Die 
zwolf  kl.  Propheten.     Leipzig,  1853  and  1873. 

*T.  W.  Chambers,  Conim.  on  Zech.  (in  Lange's  Bible  Work).  Eng. 
ed.,  1874. 

J.  P.  Lange,  Sacharja  in  Bibelwerk,  Part  XX.  Bielefeld  u.  Leipzig, 
1876. 

W.  Drake,  Comm.  on  Zech.  (Speaker's  Comm.).     London,  1876. 

E.  P.  Pusey,  The  Minor  Prophets.     Oxford  and  London,  1877. 

*C.  H.  H.  Wright,  Zech.  and  his  prophecies  (Bampton  Lectures). 
London,  1879. 

*C.  J.  Bredenkamp,  Der  Prophet  Sach.     Erlaugeu,  1879. 

Marcus  Dods,  Hag.,  Zech.,  and  Mai.  (Handb.  for  Bible  Classes). 
Edinburgh,  1879. 

*W.  H.  Lowe,  Tlie  Heb.  Student's  Comm.  on  Zech.,  Heb.  and  LXX. 
London,  1882. 

W.  Haehnelt,  "  Um  den  Abend  wird  es  licht  sein : "  der  Prophet 
Sach.  fiir  die  Gemeinde  ausgelegt.     Leipzig  1891. 

W.  H.  Green,  Prophets  and  Projyhecy  (MS.).     Princeton,  1893. 


10  .  THE    PROPHECIES    OF    ZECHAKIAH 

INTKODUCTION. 

THE    HISTORY    OF    CRITICAL    OPINION.* 

The  integrity  of  Zechariah's  prophecies  was  first  questioned 
about  the  middle  of  the  17th  century,  when  Joseph  Mede  (1653), 
of  Christ  Church  College,  Cambridge,  attacked  the  genuineness 
of  chs.  9-11.  His  motive  was  to  find,  if  possible,  a  satisfactory 
explanation  for  the  quotation  in  Matt.  27:9, 10  of  Zech.  11:12, 13, 
attriliuted  by  the  evangelist  to  Jeremiah.  Accordingly  he  argued 
that  chs.  9-11  are  of  pre-exilic  origin  and  the  work  of  Jeremiah. 
This  opened  the  way  for  criticism.  Hammond  (1653),  Court- 
preacher  to  Charles  I.,  but  especially  Kidder  (1700),  Bishop  of 
Bath  and  Wells,  and  Whiston  (1722),  Professor  at  Cambridge, 
defended  Mede's  view,  ascribing  also  chs.  12-14  to  Jeremiah; 
but  they  were  all  most  strongly  opposed  by  Carpzov  (1728),  who 
maintained  that  only  Zechariah  could  have  written  these  proph- 
ecies. After  Carpzov  nothing  more  was  published  against  the 
genuineness  of  Zech.  9-14  for  over  half  a  century,  when  the 
question  was  taken  up  afresh  in  England,  and  about  the  same 
time  introduced  by  Flugge  (1784),  Archidiakonus  in  Hamburg, 
into  Germany.  From  1784  on,  the  critical  opinions  of  Zech.  9-14 
furnish  a  most  striking  history. 

Archbishop  Newcome,  Primate  of  Ireland  (1785),  inaugurated 
a  new  era.  He  distinguished,  for  the  first  time,  two  separate  pre- 
exilic  fragments  in  chs.  9-14,  which  he  argued  belonged  to  two 
authors  of  different  times.  Chs.  9-11,  he  maintained,  were 
written  before  the  downfall  of  Samaria,  or  about  the  time  of 
Hosea;  while  chs.  12-14  were  composed  between  the  death  of 
Josiah  and  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  The  year  previous 
(1784),  when  Mede's  idea  was  introduced  into  Germany,  Flugge 
had  attempted  by  means  of  his  anonymous  writing  to  vindicate 
the  quotation  of  St.  Matthew  by  ascribing  the  last  six  chapters  of 
Zechariah  to  Jeremiah.  But  Flugge's  hypothesis  (made  like 
Mede's  in  the  interests  of  conservatism)  was  modified  by  Bauer 
(1786-90)  and  Doederlein  (1787),  who  followed  the  view  of 
Newcome.     Against   these   Corrodi    (1792)    made  a  bold  stand. 

*  Modern  criticism  uovor  (liBpntos  tlui  RcnHinonoBS  of  chs.  1-S;  on  the  ctthor  luinil,  tradi- 
tion has  novor,  witliout  exception,  (ieniod  the  Zecharian  authorship  of  chs.  lf-14. 


THE  PROPHECIES  OF  ZECHARIAH  11 

He  declared  himself  in  favor  of  the  view  (first  suggested  by 
Grotius,  1644)  that  these  chapters  of  Zechariah  are  of  late  post- 
Zecharian  origin.  Between  the  theory  of  a  pre-exilic  origin  of 
these  prophecies  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  theory  of  a  post- 
Zecharian  on  the  other,  Bechhaus  (1796),  Blayney  (1797)  and 
Jahn  (1802)  defended  the  unity  of  the  entire  book  of  Zechariah. 
Paulus  (1805),  however,  insisted  upon  a  late,  post-exilic  date,  but 
was  vigorously  opposed  by  Augusti  (1806)  and  Bertholdt  (1814), 
who  maintained  the  pre-exilic  origin  of  the  chapters  in  dispute, 
Bertholdt  suggesting  for  the  first  time  that  the  author  of  chs.  9-11 
might  be  the  Zechariah  son  of  Jeberechiah  mentioned  in  Isa.  8 : 2. 
He  consequently  assigned  these  chapters  to  the  reign  of  Ahaz, 
and  chs.  12-14  to  the  reign  of  one  of  the  last  independent  kings 
of  Judah.  With  this  opinion  agreed  Gesenius  (in  his  Commentary 
to  Isaiah)  and  de  Wette  in  the  first  three  editions  of  his  Intro- 
duction to  the  O.  T.  (1817-29),  and  also  Forberg  (1824);  but 
Koster  (1818)  defended  unity. 

The  problem  by  this  time  had  been  pretty  thoroughly  dis- 
cussed. Eichhorn  (1824),  who,  in  the  earlier  editions  of  his 
Introduction  wavered  in  his  decision,  in  the  fourth  edition  took 
a  firm  stand  in  favor  of  a  late  Grseco-Maccabean  date.  In  chs. 
9:1-10:12  he  found  a  description  of  Alexander  the  Great's  inva- 
sion in  332  B.  C,  and  in  chs.  13:7-14:21,  a  song  of  comfort  over 
the  death  of  Judas  Maccabeus  in  the  battle  with  Bacchides,  161 
B.  C,  while  chs.  11:1-13:6  were  written  in  the  period  between, 
i.  e.,  between  the  middle  of  the  4th  and  2d  centuries  B.  C.  Gram- 
berg  (1830)  also  advocated  a  post-Zecharian  origin  for  these 
chapters,  maintaining  that  they  were  a  feeble  imitation  of  older 
prophecies  and  an  awkward  working-over  of  a  pre-exilic  prophecy 
mingled  with  poetry,  entirely  disregardful  of  the  time  to  which 
they  belonged,  and  having  their  origin  in  the  last  years  of  the 
reign  of  Darius  or  in  the  first  of  Xerxes,  480  B.  C.  Likewise 
Vatke  (1835)  favored  this  period,  explaining  the  origin  of  these 
prophecies  in  the  time  of  the  Egypto-Persian  wars,  when  the  Jews 
were  continually  having  feuds  with  the  neighboring  peoples.  But 
the  post-exilic  theory  was  not  accepted  by  Theiner  (1828),  Rosen- 
miiUer  (1828),  or  Hitzig  (1830).  who  argued  in  favor  of  the 
reign  of  Uzziah  —  a  view  defended  in  later  times  by  no  one  except 


12  THE    PBOPHECIKS    OF    ZECHABIAH 

Pressel  (1870),  and  given  up  by  Hitzig  himself  in  his  Commentary 
(1838),  in  which  he  grants  that  chs.  12-14  may  be  later,  probably 
out  of  the  reign  of  Manasseh.  Defenders  of  the  unity  of  Zechariah 
were  not,  however,  wanting.  Ackermann  (R.  C,  1830),  but  espe- 
cially de  Wette  (editions  4-7, 1833 sq.)  and  Hengstenberg  (1836), 
as  well  as  McCaul  (1837)  and  Havernick  (1839)  once  more 
advocated  unity.  Knobel  (1837)  and  Hitzig  (1838)  on  the  con- 
trary re-asserted  the  pre-exilic  hypothesis.  They  were  followed 
by  Maurer  (1840),  and  also  by  Ewald  (1840),  who,  though  he 
assigned  chs.  9-11  to  the  time  of  Ahaz  and  preferred  the  period, 
"eight  to  four  years  before  586  B.  C."  for  chs.  12-14,  was  not  so 
confident  that  these  chapters  were  earlier  than  the  beginning  of 
the  exile, —  a  view  taught  also  by  Dillmann  in  his  Introduction  to 
the  O.  T.  (1894). 

From  1840  on  defenders  of  unity  were  numerous.  Burger 
and  V.  Hofmann  (1841),  Herbst  (1842),  Henderson  and 
Umbreit  (1845),  Schegg,  R.  C.  and  Baumgarten  (1854),  Moore 
and  Sandrock  R.  C.  (1856),  Kohler  and  Kliefoth  (1862)  and 
Perowne  (1863)  all  defended  the  genuineness  of  Zech.  9-14. 
But  during  the  same  period,  Meier  (1842),  Herzfeld  (1847), 
Bleek  (1852),  v.  Ortenberg  (1859),  Bunsen  (1860)  and  Samuel 
Davidson  (1862)  argued  for  a  pre-exilic  origin  of  these  chapters; 
whereas,  Stahelin  (1847).  Geiger  (1855),  and  Bottcher  (1864), 
for  a  post-Zecharian, —  Bottcher  placing  chs.  9-14  (as  already 
Eichhorn  in  part)  in  the  period  of  the  wars  between  the  Ptolemies 
and  the  Seleucidae  at  the  beginning  of  the  third  century.  On 
the  other  hand,  five  years  previous  (1859),  v.  Ortenberg  had 
considered  the  pre-exilic  theory  to  be  established  with  "absolute 
certainty";  and  argued  that  chs.  9-11  with  13:7-9  form  a  unit 
coming  from  the  hand  of  Zechariah  mentioned  in  Isa.  8 : 2,  and 
that  chs.  12:1-13:6  with  ch.  14  were  written  between  Josiah's 
death  (609  B.  C.)  and  the  downfall  of  Jerusalem  (586). 

Previous  to  1870  the  question  of  unity  was  repeatedly  con- 
tested, and  of  the  two  divisive  hypotheses,  the  pre-exilic  theory  with 
various  modifications  became  the  prevailing  critical  view.  In 
1875  Diestel  repeated  the  statement  of  Bleek  in  1852,  that  the 
pre-exilic  origin  of  Zech.  9-14  is  one  of  the  "surest  results  of  the 
modern  investigations  of  the  Bible  "    T.  W.  Chambers  also  (1874) 


THE    PROPHECIES    OF    ZECHARIAH  13 

in  summing  up  the  history  of  criticism  says:  "The  opinion  which 
referred  the  origin  of  the  controverted  chapters  to  the  time  of 
Alexander  the  Great  or  of  the  Maccabean  age  is  now  more  gener- 
ally abandoned,  and  by  later  writers  on  the  other  side  is  not 
deemed  worthy  of  reply."  And,  indeed,  it  is  noteworthy  that  for 
nearly  twenty  years  after  Bottcher  (18G4),  no  one  openly 
defended  the  post-Zecharian  hypothesis.  On  the  contrary,  many 
advocated  the  pre-exilic  theory,  among  whom  are  Pressel  (1870), 
Diestel  and  Duhm  (1875),  Reuss  (1876),  Bruston,  Steiner  (who, 
p.  370,  comments  on  the  unity  of  the  views  of  modern  criticism) 
and  Graetz  (1881),  v.  Orelli  and  Montet  (1882)  and  Riehm 
(1881).  Those  who  defended  unity  in  the  same  period  are  Keil 
(1873),  Chambers  (187-1),  Lange  and  Drake  (1876),  Pusey 
(1877),  Wright  (1878),  Bredenkamp  and  Dods  (1879),  and 
lastly  Lowe  (1882),  since  whom  no  one  has  argued  openly  the 
integrity  of  the  entire  book  of  Zechariah.  Haehnelt's  popular 
work  (1891)  is  of  no  critical  value. 

With  Stade  (1881-2)  the  criticism  of  Zech.  9-14  took  a  new 
direction.  In  the  ZATW.  he  reopened  and  discussed  the  ques- 
tion at  length,  concluding  that  chs.  9-14  were  written  in  the 
period  of  the  contests  of  the  Diadochi,  i.  p.,  between  306  and  278 
B.  C.  Since  the  publication  of  his  articles  the  tendency  of  criti- 
cism is  toward  a  post-Zecharian  origin  of  these  chapters.  As  far 
as  we  know,  Grtitzmacher's  dissertation  (1892)  is  the  only  really 
formidable  attempt  to  reinstate  the  pre-exilic  hypothesis  since 
1882.  On  the  other  hand,  many  have  followed  Stade's  lead. 
Cheyne  (1888),  by  a  process  of  reasoning  similar  to  Stade's, 
arrives  at  the  conclusion  that  Zech.  9-14  were  written  either  in 
the  late  Persian  or  early  Greek  period,  but  certainly  pre-Macca- 
bean.  Kuenen  (1889).  Briggs  (Messianic  Prophecy,  1886)  and 
Driver  (1891)  are  divided  in  their  opinion,  allowing  that  chs. 
9-11  may  be  at  least  pre-exilic  in  origin,  but  confident  that  a 
post-Zecharian  redactor  worked  them  over,  while  chs.  12-14  were 
composed  not  before  400  B.  0.  Delitzsch  [Mess.  Weissaginig, 
1889)  favors  a  post-Zecharian  date,  though  he  is  uncertain  as  to 
the  exact  time.  Cornill  (1891)  finds  the  best  historic  setting^ 
between  301  and  198  B.  C.  Graetz  (1891)  suggests  the  reign 
of  Artaxerxes  III.  for  ch.  14;  but,  on  the  contrary,  maintains  the 


14  THE    PEOPHECIES    OF    ZECHAEIAH 

pre-exilic  origin  of  clis.  9-13.  Staerk  (1891)  agrees  with  Stade 
for  the  most  part  in  placing  these  chapters  between  306  and  280 
B.  C,  but  excepts  the  fragments  11:4-17;  13:7-9,  which  he 
thinks  describe  in  an  allegorical  manner  the  events  of  171  B.  C. 
from  the  standpoint  of  the  following  year,  170  B.  C.  Rubinkam 
(1892)  assigns  these  prophecies  as  follows:  ch.  9:1-10  to  the 
year  332  B.  C.  when  Alexander  stood  before  Tyre,  and  chs.  9:11- 
14:21  to  the  years  following  168  B.  C,  because  they  witness  to 
the  struggle  for  independence  in  the  Maccabean  age.  In  refer- 
ence to  the  history  of  critical  opinion  Rubinkam  makes  the  fol- 
lowing noteworthy  remark:  "It  is  becoming  evident  that  in  spite 
of  the  great  number  of  scholars  who  in  the  past  four  or  five 
decades  have  declared  for  the  pre-exilic  origin  of  the  chapters 
under  consideration  this  theory  is  ceasing  to  satisfy.  Not  only 
those  who  for  the  first  time  are  publishing  their  opinions  upon 
the  subject,  but  also  those  [c.  g.,  Kuenen)  who  have  firmly  advo- 
cated the  pre-exilic  authorship  are  declaring  for  a  post-exilic 
date."  *  This  he  wrote  in  1892.  In  the  same  year  Wellhausen 
published  his  Skizzen  u.VornrhcHen,  5.  Heft,  in  which  he  maintains 
that  Zech.  9-14  is  a  unit  and  out  of  the  Maccabean  age.  Marti 
(1892)  likewise  places  these  prophecies  in  the  2d  century  B.  C. 
Kirkpatrick  (1892),  however,  though  he  partitions  the  book  of 
Zechariah  among  three  different  authors,  finds  no  better  or  more 
appropriate  period  for  the  historic  setting  of  chs.  9-14  than  485 
B.  C.  Eckardt  (1893)  endeavors  on  purely  linguistic  grounds 
to  prove  a  much  later  origin  for  these  chapters.  And  finally, 
Kuiper  (1894)  concludes  that  they  are  a  unit,  having  had  their 
origin  in  the  Hellenic  period,  after  the  battle  of  Issus,  but  before 
the  conquest  of  Egypt  by  Alexander,  332  B.  C. 

From  this  survey  of  the  criticism  of  the  book  of  Zechariah  it 
is  evident  that  at  present  there  are  three  jn-incipal  hypotheses 
concerning  the  origin  of  chs.  9-14:  1.  TItc  iheory  that  these 
chapters  are  of  pre-exilic  origin — first  suggested  by  Newcome 
and  Bertholdt,  viz.,  that  chs.  9-11  were  written  shortly  before  the 
downfall  of  Samaria,  722  B.  C,  and  chs.  12-14  shortly  before  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem,  586  B.  C.  The  principal  defender  of 
this  hypothesis  in  the  last  decade  is  Griltzmacher.     2.    The  tradi- 

"  Murti  also  rcinarka  {Theol.  Zeitit.auH  tier  Srlurriz,  p.  H9,  1894):  *'Doch  dioso  Ansicht 
Ulid  prn-oxilic)  erWL'ist  sicli  nn'lir  u.  molir  als  durcliaus  uulialtbar." 


THE    PROPHECIES    OF    ZECHARIAH  15 

tional  view,  which  insists  that  the  book  of  Zechariah  is  a  unit  and 
was  written  by  Zechariali,  the  contemporary  of  Zerubbabel.  This 
view  has  had  no  pronounced  defender  since  Lowe,  1882.  3.  The 
post-Zecharian  hypothesis,  which  allows  of  either  a  late  Persian, 
an  early  Greek,  or  a  Maccabean  origin  for  Zech.  9-14.  This  is 
today  the  popular  hypothesis.  In  fact  most  of  those  who  have 
written  since  1882  have  advocated  a  late  post-exilic  date,  thus 
evincing  that  the  post-Zecharian  hypothesis,  which  in  1874  ''was 
not  deemed  worthy  of  reply,"  is  renewing  its  popularity  in  the 
circle  of  a  vacillating  criticism. 

I. 

CONTENTS  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  ZECHARIAH. 

The  prophecies  of  Zechariah  naturally  fall  into  two  parts,  chs. 
1-8  and  9-14,  both  of  which  describe  the  present  and  look  for- 
ward into  the  future. 

Pa7-t  I.  {chs.  1-8)  consists  of  three  distinct  prophecies 
delivered  on  three  different  occasions:  I.  Ch.  1:1-6,  an  intro- 
duction, delivered  in  the  8th  month  of  the  2d  year  of  Darius 
Hystaspes,  520  B.  C.  These  verses  having  been  spoken  three 
months  before  the  following  prophecies  are  consequently  a  gen- 
eral introduction;  but,  one  of  the  strongest  and  most  intensely 
spiritual  calls  to  a  deep  and  sincere  repentance  to  be  found  any- 
where in  the  O.  T.  II.  Chs.  1:7-6: 15,  a  series  of  night  visions 
followed  by  an  appendix,  delivered  on  the  24th  day  of  the  11th 
month  of  the  year  520  B.  C,  or  exactly  two  months  after  the 
corner  stone  of  the  temple  had  been  laid  (Hag.  2:18).  These 
visions  were  intended  to  encourage  the  people  to  rebuild  God's 
house.  They  teach  severally  the  following  lessons:  1.  God's 
special  care  for  and  interest  in  his  people  (1:7-17).  2.  Israel's 
enemies  have  finally  been  destroyed  (2:1-4).  3.  God  will 
re-people,  protect  and  dwell  in  Jerusalem  (2:5-17).  4.  The 
priesthood  shall  be  cleansed,  continued  and  made  typical  of  the 
Messiah-Branch  to  come  (3:1-10).  5.  The  visible  shall  give 
place  to  the  spiritual  (4:1-14).  6.  The  land  shall  be  purified 
from  outward  wickedness  (5:1-4).  7.  Wickedness  shall  be 
actually  removed  from  the  land  (5:5-11).  8.  God's  people  thus 
purified  shall  rest  secure  in  him  (6:1-8).     These  eight  visions 


16  THE  PROPHECIES  OF  ZECHABIAH 

are  followed  by  a  coronation  scene,  in  which  Joshua  the  high- 
priest  is  crowned  and  made  typical  of  the  Messiah-Priest-King 
whose  name  is  Branch  (G:9-15).  III.  Chs.  7  and  8.  Zecha- 
riaJis  answer  to  the  Bethel  deputation  concernincj  fasting,  deliv- 
ered on  the  4th  day  of  the  9th  month  of  the  4th  year  of  Darius, 
518  B.  C.  The  prophet's  message  is  divided  into  four  sections 
by  the  slightly  varying  formula,  "  the  word  of  the  Lord  came 
unto  me"  (7:4,8;  8:1,18).  1.  Fasting  terminates  on  yourselves 
(7:4-7).  2.  Look  at  the  lesson  from  your  fathers  (7:8-14). 
3.  Contrast  the  past  with  the  future;  instead  of  a  curse  Jehovah 
will  send  a  blessing;  instead  of  evil,  good  (8:1-17).  4.  Your 
fasting  shall  be  changed  to  feasting,  and  many  nations  shall  in 
that  day  seek  the  Lord  of  hosts  in  Jerusalem  (8:18-23). 

Part  IT.  {chs.  9-14).  This  part  contains  two  oracles  (xiB52) 
without  dates  (9-11  and  12-14).  I.  Chs.  9-11,  an  oracle  of 
promise  to  the  new  theocracy.  This  section  contains  promises  of 
a  land  in  which  to  dwell,  a  return  from  exile,  victory  over  a  hos- 
tile world-power,  temporal  blessings  and  national  strength,  closing 
with  a  parable  of  judgment  brought  on  by  Israel's  rejection  of 
Jehovah  as  their  shepherd.  1.  Ch.  9.  Judah  and  Ephraim 
restored,  united  and  made  victorious  over  their  enemies,  are 
promised  a  land  and  a  king.  2.  Ch.  10.  How  Israel  shall  be 
saved  and  strengthened.  3.  Ch.  11.  How  Israel  has  been  pun- 
ished for  rejecting  the  shepherding  care  of  Jehovah.  II.  Chs. 
12-14.  the  victories  of  the  neio  theocracy,  and  the  cominij  day  of 
the  Lord.  1.  Ch.  12.  How  Jerusalem  shall  be  besieged  by  her 
enemies,  but  saved  by  Jehovah.  2.  Ch.  13.  How  a  remnant  of 
Israel  purified  and  refined  shall  be  saved.  3.  Ch.  14.  An  apoca- 
lyptic vision  of  judgment  and  redemption. 

II. 

THE    PRE-EXILIC    HYPOTHESIS    EXAMINED. 

Of  the  two  principal  schools  of  criticism  —  the  one  advocating 
a  pre-exilic  origin  of  Zech.  9-14,  and  the  other  a  post-Zecharian  — 
the  pre-exilic  liypothesis  will  be  discussed  first.  This  hypothesis, 
though  conditioned  by  a  successful  division  of  chs.  9-14  into  two 


THE    PROPHECIES    OF    ZECHARIAH  17 

separate,  independent  oracles,*  and  bound  to  a  literal  interpreta- 
tion of  chs.  11  and  14,  is  worthy  of  careful  examination.  We 
propose  to  discviss  it  along  three  lines, —  the  historical,  the  Mes- 
sianic and  the  literary. 

I.  The  Historical  Argument,  or  Argument  from  Historical 
Allusions. — The  historical  allusions  occurring  in  9-14  do  not  all, 
it  must  be  allowed,  point  in  the  same  direction.  Yet  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  alleged  pre-exilic  origin  of  these  chapters  it  is  to  be 
observed:  1.  TJtere  are  reasons  for  thinking  tliat,  in  hotli  parts 
of  the  Book  of  Zechariah,  the  exile  is  represented  as  an  event  of 
the  past,  and  that  the  restoration  from  exile  both  of  Ephraim  and 
Judah,  though  incomplete,  has  already  been  begun.  This  is 
unquestionably  true  of  Parti  (c/.  1:12;  7:5;  1:16;  8:3;  6:10; 
8:13;  8:7,8;  2:10, 11),  but  also  true  of  Part  II.  The  exile  is 
treated  as  a  fact.  In  10:6  Jehovah  declares,  "I  will  strengthen 
the  house  of  Judah  and  I  will  save  the  house  of  Joseph  and  they 
shall  be  as  though  /  Itad  not  cast  them  off."  The  captivity  at 
least  of  Ephraim  is  here  pre-supposed  (c/.  Driver,  p.  826;  Kuiper, 
p.  82).  But  if  it  be  so  that  Ephraim  has  already  gone  into  exile, 
this  admission  of  itself  is  disastrous  to  the  pre-exilic  hypothesis, 
as  no  one  since  Bauer  has  ever  assigned  9-11  to  a  period  subse- 
quent to  722  B.  C.  Grtitzmacher  (p.  38)  fails  to  explain  this 
pass.ige  satisfactorily,  having  overlooked  vs.  2-5,  in  which  the 
exile  and  restoration  of  Judah  are  described.  Again  in  9:8 
Jehovah  promises  to  encamp  about  his  house  on  the  army  side  so 
that  no  oppressor  shall  pass  through  again  (IV),  from  which  it 
is  evident  that  the  land  of  Judah  has  already  been  overrun  by  a 
foreign  foe  and  the  temple  desecrated  [cf.  Kohler,  and  Lowe, 
p.  84).  Further,  from  9:9  it  is  reasonable  to  infer,  inasmuch  as 
a  king  is  promised,  that  Zion  at  this  time  was  without  a  king. 
An  8th  century  people  would  hardly  have  understood  such  words. 
Israel's  restoration,  on  the  other  hand,  is  still  incomplete,  "Turn 

*  The  following  enramary  illustrates  the  great  variety  of  opinion  among  the  advocates 
of  the  pro-exilic  school :  1)  The  opinion  that  9-14  are  wholly  or  in  part  the  work  of  Jeremiah 
(Mede  and  FlUpge) ;  2)  that  9-11  were  written  in  the  time  of  Hosoa,  whereas  12-14,  between 
the  death  of  Josiah  and  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  (Nowcome,  Doederlein,  etc.) ;  3)  that  9-11  were 
written  by  the  Zechariah  mentioned  in  Isa.  8 : 2,  in  the  time  of  Ahaz,  while  12-14  were  com- 
posed just  before  5813  B.  C.  (Bertholdt,  Knobel,  etc.) ;  4)  that  9-14  is  a  unit  and  written  in  the 
time  of  Uzziah  (Rosenmiiller,  Pressel,  and  formerly  Hitzig)  ;  5)  that  9-11;  13:7-9  belong  to 
the  reign  of  Ahaz,  while  12 : 1-13 : 6  and  14  belong  to  the  period  between  the  death  of  Josiah 
and  the  downfaU  of  Jerusalem  (Ewald,  Dillmann,  Grfltzmacher  and  others).  This  last 
position  is  the  most  tenable,  and  hence  will  receive  special  attention  here. 


18  THE  PROPHECIES  OF  ZECHARIAH 

you  to  the  stronghold  ye  prisoners  of  hope:  even  today  do  I 
declare  that  I  will  render  double  unto  thee  "  (9:12).  Such  words 
have  no  sense  if  not  after  the  exile  {cf.  Wellhausen,  Encyclopedia 
Britannica).  They  describe  the  reward  Zion  is  to  receive  for 
her  exile  {cf.  Cornill,  p.  198),  and  can  be  explained  only  in  post- 
exilic  times.  But  again,  "  I  will  gather  them  and  they  shall 
return"  (10:8-10).  "Because  of  the  blood  of  thy  covenant  I 
have  sent  forth  thy  prisoners  out  of  the  pit"  (9:11),  in  the  last 
of  which  the  verb  TinViD  is  a  prophetic  perfect,  showing  that 
Zion's  deliverance  had  already  taken  place  in  God's  intention, 
and  was  therefore  certain  to  follow,  but  as  yet  not  having  taken 
place.  2.  The  allef/ed  authors  of  Zech.  9-14  disi^ociate  themseliies 
from  any  definitely  named  person  or  any  specific  event  Icnoicn  to 
he  pre-exilic.  If  a  whole  section  of  prophecy  is  to  be  dislodged 
from  its  place  in  the  development  of  scripture  and  transferred  to 
an  earlier  date,  there  ought  to  be  found  in  it  definite  historical 
allusions  which  would  justify  the  change.  But  especially,  when 
the  contrast  between  the  two  periods  is  as  great  as  that  between 
the  times  before  and  after  the  exile.  In  the  one  case  we  are 
dealing  with  nations  under  independent  kings ;  in  the  other,  with 
a  congregation  having  only  a  civil  governor  who  is  subject  to  a 
heathen  sovereign.  In  the  former  period,  we  are  dealing  with  a 
people  falling  deeper  and  deeper  into  gross  sin ;  in  the  latter,  with 
a  people  weak  but  disciplined  by  the  lesson  of  the  exile.  Before 
the  exile,  with  a  people  unwilling  to  listen  to  the  messengers  of 
Jehovah;  after  the  exile,  obeying  the  word  of  the  Lord  (Hag. 
1:14;  Ezr.  5:2).  In  view  of  this,  therefore,  observe  in  Zech. 
9-14  that,  whatever  may  have  been  the  character  of  the  nation, 
no  ruler  is  specified  by  the  prophet  or  named.  God  alone  is 
described  as  ruler  of  his  people  (9:9, 10;  14:9).  The  only  king 
mentioned  is  the  Messiah-king  (9:9).  The  kings  alluded  to  in 
14:5;  11: (5  are  kings  of  the  past.  The  alleged  allusion  to  a 
ruling  king  in  13:7-9  (Bleek)  is  wholly  unwarranted,  as  such  an 
apostrophe  to  the  Sword  could  never  have  been  uttered  by  a  pre- 
exilic  prophet  concerning  a  ruling  king  then  upon  the  throne.  In 
14:5,  when  the  prophet  speaks  of  Uzziah,  he  adds  "king  of 
Judah"  as  though  speaking  to  a  late  congregation.  The  king 
of  Gaza  (9:5)  was  a  satrap  vassal  of  the  Persian  empire  as  were 


THE    PKOPHECIES    OF    ZECHAKIAH  19 

the  "kings"  of  Tyre  and  Sidon,  according  to  Herodotus  (8:67). 
The  king  of  Persia  was  called  "  King  of  Kings"  (Dan.  2:36,  37; 
Ezr.  7:12).  It  is  further  to  be  observed  that  the  "house  of 
David"  mentioned  in  12:7-12;  13:1  is  never  described  as  being 
in  possession  of  the  throne.  The  fact  that  the  kingly  house  is 
closely  associated  with  the  priesthood  (12: 13)  and  the  inhabitants 
of  Jerusalem  (12:7,10;  13:1)  as  in  Jer.  1:18;  2:26;  13:13;  31:19 
is  no  proof,  as  Griitzmacher  (p.  36)  would  maintain,  that  our 
prophet  is  a  contemporary  of  Jeremiah.  The  same  terms  might 
easily  be  used  by  a  successor  of  Jeremiah.  Furthermore,  it  is 
David's  house  only  and  not  any  earthly  ruler  in  it  of  which  the 
prophet  speaks.  Of  it,  the  house,  might  well  a  post-exilic  prophet 
speak,  for  of  David's  house  the  Messiah  was  to  come.  The  house 
existed  after  the  captivity  and  Zerubbabel  was  its  temporary  head ; 
but  Zerubbabel  was  only  "governor  "  ( Hag.  1 : 1, 14 ;  2 : 2, 21 ) .  He 
was  never  crowned  king,  but  Joshua  (Zech.  6:11).  In  this  connec- 
tion Driver  (p.  330)  remarks,  "The  terms  in  which  the  house  of 
David  is  alluded  to,  do  not  necessarily  imply  that  it  was  the  ruling 
family,  though  it  is  true  that  a  preeminence  is  attached  to  it  (12: 
7,  8;  13:1);  and  from  1  Chron.  3:17-24;  Ezr.  8:2  we  know  that 
the  descendants  of  David  were  reckoned  as  a  distinct  family  as  late 
as  the  time  of  the  Chronicler.  The  independent  position  assigned 
to  the  house  of  Levi  as  a  whole,  beside  the  house  of  David  is 
unlike  the  representations  of  the  earlier  period  {e.  y.,  those  of 
Jeremiah,  who  only  names  the  priests  as  a  class  and  ranks  them 
after  the  kings  and  princes,  1:18;  2:26;  4:9;  8:1-13:13,  etc.); 
on  the  other  hand  it  would  harmonize  with  post-exilic  relations, 
when  the  family  of  David  was  reduced  in  prestige,  and  the  tribe 
of  Levi  was  consolidated."  {Cf.  Cornill,  p.  197.)  The  narrative 
itself  suggests  the  position  of  coordinate  preeminence  which  the 
house  of  David  held  after  the  exile  rather  than  that  of  absolute 
supremacy  as  the  reigning  house.  {Of.  Kuiper,  p.  85.)  3.  There 
are  passages  in  chs.  9-14  which,  if  jjre-exilic  in  origin,  loould 
hare  been  obscure  and  even  misleading  fa  a  people  confronted  hy 
the  catastrophes  of  722  aiul  586  B.  C.  This  is  seen  both  nega- 
tively and  positively,  (a)  In  the  entire  absence  of  any  allusion 
to  a  specific  enemy  about  to  come.  No  definite  army  is  named  as 
threatening  immediately;  no  king  designated  as  actually  approach- 


20  THE  PROPHECIES  OF  ZECHARIAH 

ing.  There  is  no  mention  whatever  in  chs.  9-11  of  an  Assyrian 
monarch  who  would  soon  besiege  and  take  Samaria  as  we  find  in 
Mic.  5:5,6;  Hos.  9:3;  10:6;  ll:5sg.  (c/.  Am.  3:11;  6:14). 
Neither  does  Judah  stand  in  peril  from  the  same  as  in  Isaiah's 
day  (Isa.  7: 17,  20;  8:1  sq.).  Instead  of  Assyria,  Javan  is  painted 
as  the  opposing  enemy  of  the  theocracy  (9:13),  and  as  yet  not 
raised  up  or  threatening.  In  chs.  12-li,  the  enemies  that  are 
described  as  coming  up  against  Jerusalem  are  not  the  Chaldeans 
under  Nebuchadnezzar,  but  rather  "all  nations"  (12:2,3;  14:2; 
cf.  Ewald,  p.  389,  and  Grutzmacher,  p.  49).  In  Jeremiah,  on  the 
contrary,  of  whom  the  author  of  Zech.  12-14  is  the  alleged  con- 
temporary, the  Chaldeans  are  particularly  specified  as  coming 
against  Jerusalem  to  take  it  and  burn  it  with  fire  (Jer.  32:5; 
37:8);  and  in  Jer.  25:9;  27:6sg.;  28:14  Nebuchadnezzar  is 
specially  designated  as  the  king  whom  Judah  would  inevitably 
serve,  (b)  In  the  absence  of  any  remonstrance  against  allying 
with  foreigners  (c.  g.,  Egypt)  for  jwotection.  But  (/.  Hos.  5:13; 
7:11;  12:1;  14:3;  Isa.  7:4,20;  80:2sq.;  31:lsq.  and  Jer.  2:18, 
36;  37:7,  in  which  it  is  expressly  forbidden,  (c)  In  flic  fact 
that  victory  and  not  defeat  is  2>i'oiitiscd.  Jehovah  promises  to 
shield  Israel  when  Syria,  Phoenicia  and  Philistia  are  destroyed 
(9:8).  Against  Javan  "the  Lord  of  hosts  shall  defend  them" 
(9:14)  and  "shall  save  them"  (9:16).  In  the  siege  of  Jerusalem 
the  Lord  will  "smite  every  horse  with  astonishment  and  his  rider 
with  madness"  (12:4).  "The  Lord  also  shall  save  the  tents  of 
Judah"  (12:7),  and  "he  will  defend  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusa- 
lem" (12:8).  The  pre-exilic  prophets  made  no  such  predictions 
{cf  Am.  7:17;  8:2;  9:8;  Isa.  8-Asq.;  9:14;  Hos.  8:14;  9:16; 
Jer.  12:14;  13:19  and  frequently).  They  could  not  prophesy 
thus;  and  indeed  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  any  true  prophet  living 
before  the  exile  could  have  uttered  such  predictions  as  are  con- 
tained in  Zech.  9-14,  promising  that  Jerusalem  would  be  spared 
when  the  fate  of  Jerusalem  was  evidently  sealed.  On  the  other 
hand  the  gathering  of  hostile  armies  about  Jerusalem  in  post- 
exilic  times  was  not  uncommon  [rf  Joseph.,  XI.,  7,8).  (d)  In 
the  fact  that  temporal  prosperity  and  abundance  are  promised 
rather  than  inrmediate  r((laitiHy  announced.  In  9:17  the  victory 
over  Javan  is  to  be  followed  by  abundance  of  corn  and  wine. 


THE  PROPHECIES  OF  ZECHAEIAH  21 

"Showers  of  rain  and  grass  in  the  field"  shall  also  be  given 
(10:1).  '"The  people  shall  increase  as  they  have  increased" 
(10:8).  Jehovah  "will  strengthen  them  in  the  Lord"  (10:12). 
"The  feeble  shall  be  as  David"  (12:8).  The  wealth  of  the 
heathen,  "  the  gold  and  the  silver  and  the  apparel  in  great  abun- 
dance" shall  be  gathered  and  divided  in  Jerusalem  as  spoil  (11:2, 
14;  cf.  Hag.  2:8).  But  all  this  is  contrary  to  what  actually  hap- 
pened to  Israel  and  Judah  almost  immediately  after  these  proph- 
ecies are  claimed  to  have  been  delivered.  Such  predictions  are 
false,  therefore,  when  viewed  from  the  pre-exilic  standpoint;  or, 
they  are  later  interpolations  (c/.  Kuenen,  Graetz,  etc.).  For, 
the  contemporaries  of  these  unknown  prophets  did  not  predict 
temporal  prosperity  on  the  eve  either  of  722  or  586  B.  C.  Amos 
predicted  catastrophe  and  desolation  (5:27;  6:7,8;  7:2,4,9); 
Hosea,  that  they  should  eat  and  not  be  satisfied  (4:10),  that  man 
and  beast  should  languish  (4:3);  Isaiah,  that  they  should  be 
hungry  and  oppressed  (3:1,5;  7:24,25);  Jeremiah,  that  the 
whole  land  would  become  a  desolation  (25:11);  and  these  pre- 
dictions actually  came  to  pass.  Those  of  the  unknown  prophets 
did  not  {cf.  Kohler,  II.,  p.  809;  Kuiper,  p.  92,  and  Cornill,  p.  197). 
On  the  other  hand,  the  encouraging  promises  of  Zech.  9-14  are 
in  perfect  harmony  with  post-exilic  times,  and  especially  in  har- 
mony with  the  consoling  declarations  of  Zech.  1-8.  In  8:11 
Jehovah  declares  that  he  "will  not  be  unto  the  residue  of  this 
people  as  in  the  former  days."  In  8: 15  he  says:  "  I  have  thought 
in  these  days  to  do  good  unto  Jerusalem  and  to  the  house  of 
Judah."  In  1:16,  "I  am  returned  to  Jerusalem  with  mercies." 
In  2:8,  "multitudes  of  men  and  cattle  shall  be  in  Jerusalem." 
In  3 :  10,  every  man  shall  sit  under  his  own  vine  and  fig-tree ;  and  in 
8: 12,  "  the  vine  shall  give  her  fruit  and  the  ground  shall  give  her 
increase  and  the  heavens  shall  give  their  dew," — types  of  the 
highest  prosperity,  (e)  In  the  fad  that  the  jieople  are  exhorted 
to  rejoice  rafher  titan  to  fear.  In  9:11,  the  prophet  exhorts, 
"  Rejoice  greatly,  O  daughter  of  Zion"  (9:9).  He  further  prom- 
ises that  the  heart  of  Ephraim  "shall  rejoice  as  through  wine," 
yea  "their  children  also  shall  be  glad"  and  rejoice  in  the  Lord 
(10:7).  But  Hosea.  the  contemporary  of  this  alleged  prophet, 
bids  Israel,  in  view  of  impending  exile,  "rejoice  not"  (9:1).    He, 


22  THE    PROPHECIES    OF    ZECHARIAH 

on  the  contrary,  pronounces  woe  upon  tliem  (7:13;  cf.  Am.  6:1). 
Amos  declares  that  their  feasts  shall  be  turned  into  mourning  and 
all  their  songs  into  lamentation  (8:10) ;  "wailing  shall  be  in  the 
broad-ways"  (5:16).  In  Zech.  14:16-19  all  nations  are  repre- 
sented as  going  up  to  Jerusalem  to  keep  the  feast  of  tabernacles  — • 
the  most  joyous  feast  of  the  year.  On  the  contrary,  Jeremiah's 
"eyes  ran  down  with  tears  night  and  day"  as  he  predicted  Judah's 
solemn  fate  (14:17).  "For  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,"  he 
declared,  "  I  will  take  from  them  the  voice  of  mirth  and  the  voice 
of  gladness"  (25:10).  But  here  again  Zech.  1-8  furnishes 
striking  parallels  to  Zech.  9-14  {cf.  Zech.  2:10;  8:19;  13:5). 
Hence  throughout  these  so-called  pre-exilian  prophecies  of  Zech. 
9-14,  there  is  sounded  forth  not  one  clear  note  of  alarm  or  warn- 
ing; judgment  rather  gives  place  to  hope,  warning  to  encourage- 
ment, threatening  to  joy  and  gladness, —  all  of  which  is  most 
inconsistent  with  the  idea  that  these  chapters  are  of  pre-exilic 
origin,  and  that  their  authors,  as  is  alleged,  spoke  to  their  age. 
On  the  other  hand,  they  are  perfectly  consistent  with  the  condi- 
tions and  promises  of  post-exilic  times.* 

Certain  historical  allusions  are  alleged  to  be  found  in  Zech. 
9-14,  however,  which  point  to  pre-exilic  times.  They  are  the 
following:  1.  Zech.  11:8,  ^' and  I  cut  off  the  three  shepherds  in 
one  month."  This  reference  is  said  to  fix  the  date  of  chs.  9-11. 
Two  interpretations  of  the  "three  shepherds"  are  commonly 
given:  (a)  Hitzig's  view,  which  identifies  them  with  three  kings 
of  the  northern  kingdom,  viz.,  Zechariah.  Shallum  and  Menahem 
(2  Kgs.  15: 8-14). -j-  But  the  value  of  this  interpretation  is 
injured  by  the  fact  that  Shallum  alone  ruled  a  full  month  ( 2  Kgs. 

*  Biirper  remarks  (p.  125) :  "  II  faut  s'otonner  do  co  quo  los  critiques  modernes,  qui  ont 
taut  do  sagacit6  et  do  ponStration  pour  trouvor  dos  traces  do  I'exil  dans  la  plupart  dos 
autres  livres  do  I'A.  T.  Cp.  ox.  dans  presque  tons  los  psauines  n'aieiit  pas  en  asaez  d'intelli- 
eoiice  pour  d^couvrir  lea  allusions  nombreuses  aux  temps  de  I'exil  qu'on  trouve  dans  tous 
les  chapitres  de  la  secondo  partio  do  Zachario :  p.  ex.  ch.  9,  la  d61ivoranco  des  prisonniora, 
ot  la  mention  dos  Grecs,  ch.  10,  presqu'en  entier,  etc." 

t  Of  tlio  score  or  more  interpretations  (Hredenkamp  pays  forty)  sivon  of  the  "three 
siiopherds  "  in  Zoch.  11 :8  these  are  examples:  Moses,  Aaron  and  Miriam  (Jerome) ;  Galba, 
Otho  and  Vitellius  (Calmot) ;  the  throe  world-ijowers  of  Daniel  —  Babylonia,  Persia  and 
Macedonia  (Koil,  Kohlor,  Kliefoth,  Hofmann) ;  Assyria,  Babylonia  and  Persia  (Stade) ; 
throe  <)(lic08  —  proptiet,  priest  and  kinf<  I  Ephrem,  Tlioodoret,  ("yrill,  Delitz.'^ch,  Brodenkamp. 
Kuiper) :  priests,  judtiea  and  lawyers  (Puaoy),  Jehoahaz,  Ji^hoiakim  and  Zedekiah  (Qimchi), 
Antiociius  P^piphancs,  Eupator  and  Demetrius  (Wright,  Lowo),  Lyaimachus,  .lason  and 
Monelaus  (Uubinkam,  Staerk),  Judas,  Jonathan  and  Simon  (Abarbanel).  Pharisee,  Sadduceo 
and  EasoDO,  otc. 


THE    PROPHECIES    OF    ZECHARIAH  23 

15:13);  and  Meuahem  reigned  ten  years  in  Samaria  (2  Kgs. 
15:17).  This  explanation,  therefore,  does  not  satisfy  the  state- 
ment of  Zech.  11:8  that  they  were  cut  oft  "in  one  month.'' 
Steiner  avoids  this  difficulty  by  making  the  one  month  relative, 
(b)  Eiuald's  view  (also  that  of  Orelli,  Maurer,  Bleek,  Kuenen 
and  Dillmann),  which  declares  in  favor  of  Zechariah,  Shallum 
and  a  usurper,  who  at  the  same  time  quickly  rose  to  power  and 
was  immediately  put  down,  but  who  happens  not  to  be  mentioned 
in  2  Kgs.  15:10-13  {cf.  Griitzmacher,  p.  47).  But  this  inter- 
pretation is  likewise  met  by  serious  objections:  (1)  There  is  no 
historical  proof  that  any  such  usurper  ever  existed  after  Shallum. 
(2)  It  is  not  certain  that  the  writer  is  speaking  exclusively  to, 
or  of  the  Israel  of  the  northern  kingdom.  (3)  The  time-condi- 
tions, "one  month,"  still  remain  unsatisfied.  Strack's  suggestion 
(p.  389)  that  the  pretender  rose  within  the  month,  is  also  a  mere 
supposition  without  historical  foundation,  and  is  therefore  equally 
unsatisfactory.  Accordingly  our  proposition  stands  fast,  that  the 
author   dissociates   himself  from   pre-exilic   persons  and   events. 

2.  Zech.  12:11-14  is  a  reference  alleged  to  fix  the  date  of  chs. 
12-14.  "  In  that  day  shall  there  be  a  great  mourning  in  Jerusa- 
lem as  the  mourning  of  Hadadrimmon  in  the  valley  of  Megiddon." 
Hadadrimmon  is  generally  supposed  to  be  the  place  where  Josiah 
was  fatally  wounded  by  Pharaoh  Necho.  (Cy.  Schrader,  Well- 
hausen,  Skizz.  u.  Vorarb.,  p.  192,  who  considers  Hadadrimmon  to 
be  the  name  of  a  God,  and  Griitzmacher,  p.  17).  Both  accounts 
of  Josiah 's  death  state  that  it  was  "at"  or  "in  the  valley"  of 
Megiddon  where  his  wound  was  received  (2  Kgs.  23:29  and  2 
Chron.  35:22).  And  the  Chronicler  tells  us  that  not  only 
Megiddon  but  "all  Judah  and  Jerusalem  mourned  for  Josiah," 
that  "Jeremiah  wrote  lamentations  over  him  and  the  singing  men 
and  the  singing  women  spake  of  Josiah  in  their  lamentations  to 
this  day,  and  made  them  an  ordinance  in  Israel"  (2  Chron.  35: 
24,  25).  It  was  a  national  mourning  for  a  national  calamity,  the 
memory   of  which    long   lingered   in   the   minds  of   pious   Jews. 

3.  Zech.  14:5,  "  Ye  shall  flee  like  as  ye  fled  from  before  the 
earthquake  in  tlie  days  of  Uzziah,  king  of  Judah."  But  the 
earthquake  here  alluded  to  occurred  at  least  a  century  and  a  half 
before  the  date  assigned  for  the  composition  of  ch.  14,  and  yet 


24  THE  PROPHECIES  OF  ZECHAKIAH 

the  event  seems  to  be  just  as  "fresh  in  the  mind  of  the  author" 
as  the  mourning  in  the  valley  of  Megiddon  (c/.  Bleek,  p.  391). 
RosenmuUer  saw  the  force  of  this  argument  and  so  placed  the 
entire  six  chapters  (9-14)  in  the  reign  of  Uzziah.  Observe  "as 
ye  fled,"  etc.  Wellhausen,  Encyclopedia  Britannica,  weighing 
this  passage,  remarks:  "Zech.  14:5  is  a  stronger  argument  for  a 
date  in  the  Assyrian  period  than  anything  cited  from  chs.  9-11," 
and  in  his  Skizz.  u.  Vorarb.  (p.  194)  argues  that  "whoever  is 
unwilling  to  admit  the  force  of  this  reference  forfeits  the  right 
to  protest  against  the  proposition  that  sometimes  other  archaic 
expressions  are  intentionally  found  in  later  prophecies."  It  need 
only  be  added  in  the  case  of  Zech.  12:11  and  14:5  that,  from  the 
pre-exilic  standpoint,  the  argument  in  favor  of  the  one  passage 
vitiates  the  force  of  the  argument  in  favor  of  the  other.  4.  The 
names  given  to  the  theocracy  in  9-14  imply,  it  is  alleged,  a  pre- 
exilic  date  for  the  entire  section;  e.  g.,  in  9-11  various  terms  are 
employed  which  indicate  that  the  kingdoms  of  Israel  and  Judah 
are  still  standing;  such  as  Ephraim  and  Jerusalem  (9: 10),  Judah 
and  Ephraim  (9:13),  house  of  Judah  and  house  of  Joseph  (10:6), 
and  "the  brotherhood  between  Judah  and  Israel"  (11:14);  in 
12-14,  on  the  contrary,  only  Judah,  Jerusalem  (12:2),  inhab- 
itants of  Jerusalem  (12:5,10;  13:1),  house  of  David  and  house 
of  Levi  appear,  thus  showing  that  the  northern  kingdom  is  no 
longer  in  existence  and  that  Judah  only  remains  (v.  Ortenberg, 
Knobel,  Ewald.  Dillniann,  Grrfttzmacher,  p.  43).  Among  these 
the  chief  allusion  is  the  breaking  of  the  brotherhood  between 
Judah  and  Israel  in  11:14.  By  this  Grtltzmacher  (p.  48)  imder- 
stands  "  the  breaking  out  of  war  between  Israel  and  Judah  which 
took  place  under  Pekah  of  Israel  and  Ahaz  of  Judah  (so  Dillniann 
and  others).  But  in  history  a  union  existed  between  Judah  and 
Israel,  as  Cornill  observes  (p.  199),  only  during  the  reigns  of 
Ahab  and  Jehosaphat  and  their  next  successors.  Others  claim 
that  no  "  brotherhood  "  ever  existed  between  Israel  and  Judah,  in 
the  sense  in  which  the  term  is  here  employed,  after  the  schism  of 
Jeroboam  I.  And  indeed  there  was  no  real  "  brotherhood  "  in 
the  reigns  of  Jehosaphat  and  Ahab  any  more  than  in  the  days  of 
Pekah  and  Ahaz.  The  expression  is  a  doubtful  one,  as  it  can 
refer  citlicr  1o  the  original  schism  of  Israel  and  Judah  in  the 


THE    PROPHECIES    OF    ZECHAKIAH  25 

days  of  Jeroboam,  to  the  captivity  of  Israel  in  722  B.  C,  or  to  a 
later  rupture  which  was  to  happen  after  the  time  of  the  prophet. 
The  origin  of  the  expression  mriX  {d.  X. )  is  most  easily  explained 
in  post-exilic  times  when  Ezekiel's  prophecy  of  the  "two  sticks" 
(37:16s5.)  was  fulfilled,  and  Israel  and  Judah  were  really  united 
in  religion  and  government.  This  harmonizes  with  the  prophet's 
aim,  everywhere  making  the  interest  of  Israel  and  Judah  the  same 
(9 :  10, 13 ;  10 : 6 ;  12 : 1  sg. ) .  To  him  Israel  and  Judah  are  united, 
not  merely  coexisting.  Ezekiel's  vision  had  become  a  fact,  Israel 
and  Judah  now  stood  in  the  relation  of  a  reunited  brotherhood, 
"to  break  which  was  emblematic,"  as  Delitzsch  (p.  218)  says: 
"  of  the  deeper  rupture  which  would  one  day  divide  the  Jewish 
people  into  halves,  one  holding  to  the  good  shepherd,  and  the  other 
rejecting  him."  Israel  and  Judah  were  both  represented  in  the 
post-exilic  congregation;  and  as  names,  were  both  applicable  to 
the  post-exilic  theocracy  for  the  following  reasons:  (1)  Even 
before  the  exile  Ephraim  became  mixed  with  Judah.  Men  of 
Asher,  Manasseh  and  Zebulun,  came  to  Jerusalem  to  keep  the 
passover  of  Hezekiah  (2  Chron.  30:11).  Ephraim  also  was 
among  them  (c/.  v.  18).  Both  Israel  and  Judah  joined  also  in 
celebrating  Josiah's  passover  feast  (2  Chron.  35 :  18) .  (2)  Among 
the  42,360  led  back  under  Zerubbabel  (Ezr.  2;  Neh.  7),  about 
12,000  were  without  pedigree,  among  whom  there  were  doubtless 
(Oehler)  several  from  the  ten  tribes  whose  genealogies  had  been 
neglected.  Twelve  heads  of  houses,  including  Zerubbabel  and 
Joshua,  presided  over  them  (Neh.  7:7;  Ezr.  2:2).  (3)  From 
1  Chron.  9:2,  3  it  is  obvious  that  at  least  five  tribes,  Judah,  Levi, 
Benjamin,  Ephraim  and  Manasseh  were  represented  among  them. 
Zechariah's  call  to  flee  from  dwelling  in  Babylon  doubtless 
brought  others  (Zech.  2:10).  (4)  Later,  in  Ezra's  day,  the  Jews 
regarded  themselves  as  representatives  of  the  twelve  tribes;  this 
is  seen  in  their  offering  twelve  goats  as  a  sin-offering  at  the  dedi- 
cation of  the  temple  (Ezr.  H:17),  and  in  a  second  sin-offering  of 
twelve  bullocks  for  all  Israel  (Ezr.  8:35).  (5)  The  N.  T.  men- 
tions Anna  of  the  tribe  of  Asher  (Lk.  2:36),  Barnabas  of  the 
tribe  of  Levi  (Acts  4:30),  and  Paul  as  of  the  tribe  of  Benjamin 
(Phil.  3:5),  who  in  his  defense  before  Agrippa  speaks  of  the 
twelve  tribes  as  existing  in  his  own  day  (Acts  26:7).     The  twelve 


26  THE    PROPHECIES    OF    ZECHARIAH 

tribes  are  also  spoken  of  in  Matt.  19:28;  Lk.  22:30;  Rev.  7:4; 
21:12,  all  showing  that  the  names  Israel  and  Judah  survived  the 
exile,  and  are  therefore  appropriate  appellations  in  the  mouth  of 
a  post-exilic  prophet.  The  idea  of  the  "Lost  Ten  Tribes"  is,  as 
Wright  remarks,  "a  myth  of  later  ages"'  (c/.  Wellhausen,  p.  183). 
Again,  the  expressions  "house  of  Israel"  and  "house  of  Judah" 
are  no  proof  of  the  pre-exilic  origin  of  these  chapters  for  both  terms 
were  used  after  the  ten  tribes  had  been  carried  away  (e.  r/.,  Jer. 
31:27-31).  They  actually  occiir  once  in  Zeeh.  1-8  (viz.,  8:13). 
These  terms,  however,  doubtless  attained  a  broader  signification 
in  post-exilic  times.  The  name  Israel,  for  example,  is  often  used 
as  coextensive  with  the  whole  nation  [cf.  Ezr.  2:2,5,9,  70;  3:1; 
4:3;  6:16,21;  7:28;  8:29;  Neh.  1:6;  7:7;  8:17;  9:1,2;  Zech.  2: 
2,  4).  In  Mai.  1:5  the  prophet  speaks  of  the  "  border  of  Israel," 
referring  naturally  to  the  borders  of  the  entire  nation  {cf.  2:11). 
Zech.  9:1. sq.  is  (as  Mai.  1:1)  addressed  to  Israel,  but  not  to 
Israel  of  the  ten  tribes  necessarily,  as  the  author  expressly  says, 
"as  of  all  the  tribes,"  implying  that  the  prophecies  of  Ezek.  37: 
16 sg.;  Jer.  30:3;  Hos.  3:5  and  Am.  9:9, 14, 15  were  now  fulfilled 
in  the  ecclesia  of  the  post-exilic  theocracy.  That  one  of  the 
twelve  tribes  should  be  lost  was  from  the  first  regarded  as  a 
grievous  misfortune  (Judg.  21:36).  On  the  other  hand,  only  as 
representatives  of  the  twelve  tribes  could  the  theocracy  expect  to 
inherit  a  right  to  the  covenant  j)romises.  Hence  the  use  of  these 
names  in  a  post-exilic  prophecy  is  nothing  unusual  or  extraordi- 
nary. 5.  Zech.  14:10,  the  area  occupied  by  Judah  when  the 
prophecy  was  ivritten.  The  expression  "  from  Geba  to  Rimmon" 
limits,  it  is  claimed,  the  origin  of  12-14  to  a  time  prior  to  the 
captivity  (c/.  Steiner,  p.  371).  But,  while  it  marks  the  bound- 
aries of  Judah "s  territory  before  the  downfall  of  Jerusalem,  it 
also  satisfies  the  conditions  after  the  exile  (c/.  Wellhausen,  p.  195). 
Schttrer  says  {History  of  Jewish  People,  p.  189),  the  extent  of  the 
Jewish  commonwealth  during  the  Persian  domination  was  prob- 
ably limited  to  Judah  proper,  which  in  its  range  corresponded 
nearly  with  the  kingdom  of  Judah  of  earlier  days."  6.  The 
national  sins  according  to  Zech.  9-14.  It  is  argued  from  10:2; 
13:2-6  that  idolatry  and  false  prophecy  are  represented  as  the 
prevailituj  sins  of  the  prophet's  time,  and  that,  therefore,  these 


THE  PROPHECIES  OF  ZECHAKIAH  27 

prophecies  must  have  been  written  before  the  exile  (Dillmann, 
Griitzmacher  and  others).  But  from  these  passages  we  can 
hardly  conclude  that  idolatry  and  false  prophecy  were  the  pre- 
vailing sins  at  the  time  of  writing:  for.  one  of  these  passages 
refers  to  the  past  (10:2),  and  the  other  is  clearly  a  reference  to 
the  future  (13:2-()).  In  10:2,  teraphim,  diviners  and  dreamers 
are  alluded  to.  But  the  prophet  here  is  speaking  of  what  hap- 
pened in  the  past,  before  the  exile,  and  which  now  would  be  a 
gross  sin  for  Israel  to  repeat;  therefore  he  exhorts,  "ask  of  the 
Lord  rain,"  etc.,  and  not  of  teraphim  and  idols,  for  "  they  have 
spoken  vanity."  In  13:2—6,  "the  names  of  the  idols,"  "the 
prophets,"  and  "the  unclean  spirit"  shall,  "in  that  day,"  be 
cut  off  out  of  the  land  (just  as  "theft"  and  "lying"  are  to  be 
removed,  in  Zech.  5:3-11).  The  prophet  is  here  describing  the 
future,  how  the  land  shall  "in  that  day"  be  purified  from  sin  and 
from  uncleanness.  In  neither  case  does  the  author  speak  of  idol- 
atry as  the  sin  of  the  present  (of.  Bredenkamp,  p.  104).  If,  how- 
ever, it  be  insisted  that  the  author  of  10 : 2  was  speaking  to  an 
8th  century  people,  his  language  stands  out  in  decided  contrast 
to  that  of  his  contemporaries.  Hosea,  for  example,  describes  the 
idolatry  of  Israel  in  his  day  "as  a  great  whoredom  from  the 
Lord"  (l:2sQ.),  for  "they  sacrifice  upon  the  tops  of  the  moun- 
tains and  burn  incense  upon  the  hills"  (-4:13).  "Ephraim  is 
joined  to  idols"  (-1:17).  "Of  their  silver  and  gold  have  they 
made  them  idols"  (8:4;  13:2),  yea,  "altars  to  sin"  (8:11). 
"Israel  hath  forgotten  his  maker"  (8:14),  therefore,  "O  Israel, 
thou  hast  destroyed  thyself"  (13:0).  The  language  of  Amos 
and  Isaiah  is  equally  vehement  (c/.  Am.  4:4sg.;  o-Asq.;  8:14; 
Isa.  2:8;  8:19;  10:11,  etc.).  But  how  differently  our  author 
expresses  himself  !  He  employs  nothing  but  past  tenses,  remark- 
ing that  "the  teraphim  have  spoken  (l"i21)  vanity,"  and  "the 
star-gazers  have  seen  (^T")  a  lie,"  etc.  (10: 2),  and  this  is  the  only 
instance  in  all  his  prophecies  which  hints  that  he  is  addressing 
himself  to  an  idolatrous  people.  And  likewise  the  author  of 
13:2-6,  speaks  as  though  he  were  writing  in  a  period  when 
idols  and  false  prophecy*  were  remembered,  but  almost  extinct, 

•Tlio  priipliHts  referrnd  to  in  Zech.  13:2Kg.  aio  falee  prophets:  for  (o)  they  are  closely 
associated  witli  unclean  spirits,  with  no  intimation  of  a  contrast  oxistinR  between  them; 
and  ib)  in  V.  4  it  is  said  that  they  will  no  longer  "  wear  a  rou«h  garment  to  deceive."  God's 
prophets  were  not  wont  to  deceive. 


28  THE    PROPHECIES    OF    ZECHARIAH 

only  the  names  and  altars  and  groves  of  idolatry  remaining. 
Hence  he  declares  that  the  day  is  coming  when  even  the  names 
of  the  idols  shall  cease  from  the  land,  when  every  vestige  of 
idolatry  (as  Hosea  had  prophesied,  2:19)  and  all  false  prophets 
would  be  made  to  disappear  from  the  midst  of  Israel.  This  Is 
very  different  from  the  repeated  strain  of  his  alleged  contempo- 
rary, Jeremiah,  who  continually  denounced  idols  and  false  proph- 
ets (c/.  10:14;  19:13;  25:6;  32:35).  True,  there  was  always 
danger  of  Israel  relapsing  into  idolatry.  Intermarriage  with  the 
heathen  always  endangered  the  worship  of  Jehovah  ( Ezr.  9 •.2sq.; 
Neh.  13 :  23-26) .  Sorcery  is  denounced  by  Malachi  (2:11;  3:5), 
and,  as  Cornill  remarks,  "as  ever  increasing."  False  prophets 
actually  existed  in  the  days  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  (Neh.  6:7- 
14,  21).  But  in  Hag.  and  Zech.  1-8  these  evils  are  not  men- 
tioned. In  Zech.  10:2  we  have  more  of  a  warning  than  an  accu- 
sation ;  and  in  13:2-6,  a  promise  for  the  future.  This  much  at 
least  we  tenaciously  hold,  viz.,  that  idolatry  and  false  prophecy 
are  not  treated  in  Zech.  9-14  as  the  prevailing  sins  of  the  age. 
7.  TJte  eneniies  of  Is7-ael  in  Zech.  9-14.  These  are  Assyria  and 
Egypt  (10:10-11),  Syria,  Phoenicia,  and  Philistia  (9:1-7),  and 
Greece  (9:13) ;  the  mention  of  whom,  it  is  alleged,  fixes  the  date 
of  these  prophecies  as  pre-exilic.  (a)  Zech.  10:10,  11;  14:18, 
19;  Assyria,  and  Egypt.  The  following  claims  are  made  with 
reference  to  these  passages:  (a)  that  ihc  use  of  the  terms,  Assyria 
and  Egypt,  by  a  post-exilic  writer  is  "impossible"  (Graetz, 
Monats.,  p.  284).  But  this  is  not  so  certain.  No  one,  for 
example,  would  doubt  the  post-exilic  origin  of  Lamentations,  and 
yet  in  ch.  5:6  the  term  "Assyrians"  occurs,  most  probably 
intended  for  Babylonians:  in  2  Kgs.  23:29,  Pharaoh-Necho  is 
described  as  going  up  against  the  "King  of  Assyria,"  whereas 
Nebuchadnezzar,  King  of  Babylon,  is  meant  (c/.  Kuiper,  p.  82); 
and  in  Ezr.  6:22  "Assyria"  is  employed  instead  of  Persia.  These 
instances  render  it  at  least  possible  that  in  Zech.  10:10,  11  we 
have  a  parallel  instance  (Vatke).  We  still  speak  of  "Egypt" 
and  "the  Egyptians,"  though  the  country  has  passed  under  many 
diiferent  protectorates  since  the  time  of  the  Pharaohs.  Rubinkam 
suggests  a  principle  by  which  these  references  can  be  explained, 
viz..  tlie   later  a   prophecy  is.  the  wider  is  its  scope  and  the  less 


THE    PROPHECIES    OF    ZECHARIAH  29 

value  can  be  placed  on  the  use  of  words  and  phrases.  An  earlier 
writer  cannot,  of  course,  use  modes  of  speech  which  have  their 
birth  in  later  times,  but  a  later  writer  may  be  easily  influenced  by 
the  diction  and  phraseology  of  a  former  age.  Forms  of  expres- 
sion are  slow  in  changing.  In  the  New  Testament,  e.  r/.,  Jesus 
speaks  of  coming  into  the  borders  of  Zebulun  and  Naphthali 
(Matt.  4:13).  So  here  in  Zech.  10:10,  11,  the  prophet  was 
representing  the  future  under  the  forms  of  the  past.  De  Wette 
iinally  decided  to  explain  these  terms  as  "an  affectation  of  archa- 
ism" rather  than  maintain  the  pre-exilic  origin  of  these  prophe- 
cies. Hosea  had  predicted  that  Ephraim  would  be  scattered  in 
Assyria  and  Egypt  (7:16;  8:13;  9:3,  6;  11:5,  11),  and  very 
naturally,  a  later  prophet,  in  promising  deliverance  to  Ephraim, 
would  expect  the  same  countries  to  give  them  up.  (/3)  //  is 
further-  claimed  that  these  nations  were  in  the  height  of  their 
power  when  the  prophet  lorote  (Flugge,  Bertholdt,  Bleek,  v.  Orten- 
berg,  Grutzmacher,  p.  89,  and  others).  But  this  claim,  while  it 
has  some  force,  would  have  far  greater  weight  were  Assyria  and 
Egypt  the  subjects  of  the  prophet's  thought.  Not  these,  on  the 
contrary,  but  Ephraim  is  the  main  theme  of  his  discourse.  Hence 
we  must  not  press  this  reference  to  Ephraim's  enemies  too  far. 
They  were  of  minor  value  in  the  prophet's  mind  compared  with 
the  immense  importance  of  Jehovah's  promises  to  Ephraim,  which 
he  was  now  commissioned  to  deliver.  Furthermore,  while  it  can- 
not be  denied  that  Assyria  and  Egypt  are  spoken  of  as  still  in 
possession  of  great  power,  yet  it  is  equally  true  that  the  prophet 
does  not  speak  of  them  as  active,  either  as  helping  forward 
Ephraim's  captivity,  or  as  resisting  Ephraim's  return;  which  cor- 
responds exactly  with  post-exilic  conditions,  when  the  power  of 
both  nations  had  been  broken.  Moreover,  in  v.  10  the  prophet 
speaks  rather  of  the  "land"  of  Assyria  and  the  "land"  of  Egypt, 
out  of  which  Ephraim  should  be  gathered,  and  in  v.  11  he  strength- 
ens the  hope  of  Ephraim  by  contrasting  the  final  condition  of 
these  heathen  countries  with  the  future  prosperity  of  Israel  in  v. 
12.  (y)  It  is  further  maintained  that  the  special  mention  of 
Egypt  in  14:18, 19  indicates  that  Egypt  at  that  time  ivasJudah's 
special  enemy  (Grfttzmacher,  p.  20).  But  the  particular  mention 
of  Egypt  in  ch.  14  is  obviously  due  to  the  physical  conditions  of 


30  THE  PROPHECIES  OF  ZECHARIAH 

that  land,  with  which  the  author  was  acquainted.  Egypt,  being 
watered  by  the  Nile,  needed  no  rain,  hence  the  prophet  is  forced 
to  resort  to  another  punishment,  viz.,  plague  (c/.  Hofmann,  Hitzig, 
KOhler,  Reuss,  Stade,  Wellhausen,  and  others) .  There  is  no  foun- 
dation for  imputing  to  the  prophet  (as  Bredenkamp,  p.  199)  a 
moral  reason  for  the  special  mention  of  Egypt;  for,  if  the  specifi- 
cation lies  not  in  the  physical  conditions  of  Egypt,  it  is  difficult 
to  see  why  Egypt  and  not  Babylon  should  have  been  threatened 
by  a  prophet  who  lived,  as  Grutzmacher  says,  not  long  before  the 
capture  of  Jerusalem  by  Nebuchadnezzar. 

(b)  Zech.  9:1-8,  Syria,  Phoenicia,  and  PhilisUa.  The  follow- 
ing claims  are  made  concerning  the  mention  of  these  nations:  (a) 
Tliat  these  kingdoms  were  still  "independent"  tohen  the  prophet 
wrote,  which  in  post-exilic  times  was  not  the  case  (Grutzmacher,  p. 
40).  But  the  text  does  not  state  that  they  were  independent,  as 
Kuiper  observes  (p.  80).  They  are  represented  as  overcome  with- 
out resistance.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  not  inconsistent  with  post- 
exilic  conditions  that  these  kingdoms  then  existed  in  western 
Asia.  Haggai  speaks  of  "nations"  and  "kingdoms"  and 
"thrones"  (2:7,  22),  which,  being  heathen,  would  be  over- 
thrown, and  yet  in  Haggai's  day  Darius  ruled  all  western  Asia 
and  Egypt.  The  fact  of  Phoenicia's  importance  at  the  beginning 
of  the  5th  century  is  beyond  dispute.  Ezekiel's  prophecies 
against  Tyre  and  Sidon  ( 28 : 1-23 )  closely  resemble  those  under 
discussion.  Syria,  Phoenicia,  and  Philistia  always  remained  the 
enemies  of  Israel — either  active  or  passive.  Jeremiah  prophesied 
against  Damascus  and  Hamath  long  after  their  loss  of  independ- 
ence (732  and  739  B.C.)  by  Tiglath-pileser  III.  (Jer.  49:28- 
27).  Judgments  were  also  pronounced  upon  the  Philistines 
both  by  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel  (Jer.  25:20;  Ezek.  25: 15-17) ; 
likewise  by  Zephaniah  (2:4-7).  After  the  exile,  the  Philistines 
resisted  Israel's  return  (Neh.  4:7,  8)  and  remained  hostile  to  the 
Jews  and  to  their  religion  until  the  time  of  the  Maccabees  (I. 
Mace.  3:41;  10:83;  cf.  5:lsq.;  Sirach  1:26;  Ecclus.  50:20). 
In  short,  all  these  nations  were  Israel's  hereditary  foes,  and, 
therefore,  judgments  pronounced  against  them  were  always  in 
place  [cf.  Kuiper,  p.  80).  [p)  It  is  further  urged  that  9:1-8 
bears  a  close  resemldance  to  Amos   [1:1-2:6)  and  hence  must 


THE  PROPHECIES  OF  ZECHARIAH  31 

have  been  delivered  af  about  the  same  iimc  (Bleek,  Einleit.,  (3th 
ed.,  p.  386).  But  the  alleged  similarities  between  these  prophe- 
cies consist  chiefly  in  the  names  of  the  cities  threatened;  e.  g., 
Damascus,  Tyre,  Graza,  Ashkelon,  Ekron,  and  Ashdod  are  in  com- 
mon. The  dissimilarities  are  much  greater  and  far  more  strik- 
ing: (1)  The  order  of  the  nations  threatened.  With  Amos  the 
order  is  Syria,  Philistia,  Phoenicia;  in  Zech.  9:1-8,  Syria,  Phoe- 
nicia, Philistia.  (2)  Amos  predicts  the  captivity  of  Syria  (1:5); 
the  prophet  in  Zech.  9:1-8  does  not.  (3)  Amos  prophecies  that 
Tyre  shall  be  burned  with  fire;  our  prophet  (like  Ezek.  28:2-5) 
rather  specifies  Tyre's  "power  in  the  sea,"  which  shows  her 
importance  in  commerce,  and  likewise,  prophesies  against  Sidon 
(c/.  Ezek.  28:21-2()).  (4)  Amos  includes  the  Edomites,  Ammon- 
ites, and  Moabites  as  objects  of  God's  wrath,  but  in  Zech.  9:1-8 
they  are  passed  over  in  silence  (c/.  Bredenkamp.  p.  81).  These 
were  powerful  nations  in  the  8th  century  B.C.  After  the  exile, 
on  the  contrary,  they  were  so  weak  that  Nehemiah,  with  half  of 
the  returned  exiles  in  arms,  repelled"  Sanballat  and  Tobiah  and 
the  Arabians  and  the  Ammonites  and  the  Ashdodites,"  who 
together  had  conspired  to  hinder  the  Jews  from  rebuilding  the 
walls  of  Jerusalem,  while  the  other  half  went  on  with  the  work  of 
building  (Neh.  4:7-8).  On  the  other  hand,  a  post-exilic  prophet 
might  very  appropriately  condemn  the  Syrians,  the  Phoenicians, 
and  the  Philistines,  because,  as  Kohler  suggests,  they  lay  within 
the  rightful  boundary  of  Israel's  territory  (Ezek.  20:42:  47:13 
sq.).  (5)  Amos  includes  Israel  and  Judah  among  the  nations 
upon  whom  the  Lord  will  presently  inflict  judgments  (2:4sf/.); 
but  in  Zech.  9:1-8  they  are  described  as  a  nation  under  Jehovah's 
special  care,  which  shows  that  Jehovah's  attitude  toward  Israel 
had  changed.  (6)  Amos  gives  in  each  case  the  reason  why 
Jehovah  will  punish  the  nations;  but  the  prophet  in  Zech. 
9 : 1-8  fails  to  show  any  real  reason  why  these  nations  should  be 
destroyed,  except  that  Israel  is  returning  home,  and  they  are 
occupying  Jewish  territory.  (7)  Amos  declares  that  "the  rem- 
nant of  the  Philistines  shall  perish"  (1:8);  whereas  our  prophet 
promises  that  those  which  remain  shall  be  as  chieftains  in  Judah. 
and  Ekron  as  Jebusites  incorporated  into  the  nation  (9:7).  This 
is   a   positive   proof   in   favor  of   the  post-exilic  origin  of   Zech. 


32  THE    PROPHECIES    OF    ZECHAKIAH 

9:1-8  (c/.  Kuiper,  p.  80).  (8)  Amos  describes  the  moral  con- 
dition and  sinfulness  of  Israel;  but  our  prophet  pictures  Israel 
as  waiting  upon  the  Lord  (9:1).  (9)  Finally,  Amos  distin- 
guishes between  Israel  and  Judah;  but  the  author  of  Zech. 
9:1-8  makes  the  interests  of  "all  the  tribes  of  Israel"  the  same 
(9:1);  cf.  Graetz,  3Ionats.,  Tp.  280).  (-y)  Again,  it  is  claimed 
that  the  storm  which  breaks  in  upon  the  kingdoms  of  Syria,  Phoe- 
nicia, and  Philistia  is  the  second  invasion  of  Tiglath-pileser  in 
734  B.C.  (Grutzmacher,  p.  45).  This  is  substantiated  by  the 
mention  of  "Hadrach"  (9:1) — an  8th  century  word  —  and  the 
almost  perfect  agreement  of  the  monuments  with  Zech.  9:1-8. 
But  the  name  "Hadrach"  for  Syria,  which  appears  in  8th  cen- 
tury inscriptions,  may  have  been  employed  quite  as  well  by  a 
prophet  of  the  6th  century.  No  other  writer  of  the  8th  century 
uses  the  term.  It  was  doubtless  the  common  Assyrian  name  for 
Syria,  and  as  such  finds  its  way  appropriately  in  the  mouth  of  an 
Assyrian-trained  prophet  who  was  speaking  to  a  people  accus- 
tomed to  Assyrian  appellations  and  terminology  (c/.  Schrader, 
KAT.,  pp.  326,  453).  As  regards  the  invasion  of  Tiglath-pileser 
in  734  B.C.,  described  in  2  Kgs.  15:29;  16:9,  and  confirmed  by 
the  Assyrian  inscriptions,  which  accords  so  perfectly  with  Zech. 
9:1-8,  it  is  to  be  observed:  (1)  that  neither  the  inscriptions  nor 
the  biblical  record  mention  the  capture  of  Tyre  (c/.  Kuiper,  p. 
77);  (2)  nor  indeed  is  Philistia  mentioned  in  the  Bible  account. 
One  thinks  more  naturally  of  Uzziah's  time  in  connection  with 
Philistia  (2  Chron.  26:6;  cf.  Hitzig-Steiner,  p.  369).  (3)  Our 
author  sees  clearly  that  the  invasion  will  not  aifect  Jerusalem 
(9:8).  (4)  Moreover  the  degree  of  the  dispersion  indicated  in 
9:11-13,  10:6-11  as  the  result  of  the  alleged  invasion  can  hardly 
be  referred  to  the  devastation  of  Grilead  and  Lebanon  by  Tiglath- 
pileser,  but  drives  us  powerfully  to  think  of  times  subsequent  to 
the  exile  (Elmslie).  (5)  Finally,  Griitzmacher's  interpretation  is 
based  upon  the  supposition  that  in  Zech.  10:3  the  prophet  hopes 
that  Judah  will  bo  able,  with  the  help  of  Tiglath-pileser,  to  come 
through  the  war  with  Israel  and  Syria,  and  in  the  future  be  able 
to  rescue  Ephraim  from  captivity  (p.  46).  But  this  interpreta- 
tion is  both  unnatural  and  unnecessary.  It  is  quite  as  easy  to 
explain  Zech.  9,  with  Hitzig-Steiner  (p.  370),  in  terms  of  the 
reign  of  Jeroboam  11.  (c/.  2  Kgs.  14:28). 


THE    PROPHECIES    OF    ZECHAKIAH  33 

(c)  Zech.  9:13 — Javan.  i.  e.,  Ionia  or  Greece.  "For  I  have 
bent  Judah  for  me,  I  have  filled  the  bow  with  Ephraim;  and  I 
will  stir  up  thy  sons,  O  Zion,  against  thy  sons,  O  Greece,  and 
will  make  thee  as  the  sword  of  a  mighty  man."  This  is  the  most 
striking  historical  illusion  in  these  controverted  chapters,  the 
explanation  of  which  must  determine  in  large  part  the  date  of 
these  prophecies.  The  following  solutions  are  offered  by  the 
advocates  of  the  pre-exilic  hypothesis,  (a)  Thai  Zech.  9:13  is 
explained  by  Joel  4:6,  7  (Hitzig,  Bleek,  Ewald,  Griltzmacher, 
Montet,  p.  23).  According  to  this  view,  the  "sons  of  Zion"  are 
the  Israelitish  prisoners  sold  by  the  Phoenicians  to  the  lonians, 
or  sons  of  Greece  (Hitzig),  who,  already  too  long  in  slavery,  are 
to  be  aroused  by  Jehovah  (Ewald)  and  set  free,  as  they,  too,  are 
parties  to  the  covenant  of  promise  mentioned  in  Zech.  9:11,  12 
(Bleek).  In  this  case  the  author  is  speaking  of  Hebrew  slaves 
and  of  Ionian  and  Arabian  tradesmen  of  the  8th  century,  B.  C. 
But  on  the  contrary,  in  the  passage  before  us,  we  have  to  do 
rather  with  a  godless  heathen  power,  the  subjection  of  which 
must  precede  the  breaking  in  of  the  Messianic  kingdom  (c/. 
Kuiper,  p.  83).  The  "sons  of  Zion"  are  Judah  and  Ephraim, 
rather  than  a  small  band  of  Hebrew  slaves  sold  into  Grecian  or 
Arabian  lands  (c/.  Bredenkamp,  p.  99).  It  is  not  to  be  sujjposed 
that  by  a  successful  insurrection  of  slaves  the  Messianic  age  is  to 
be  inaugurated.  Such  an  idea  is  too  absurd  (Pusey).  The 
context  clearly  shows  that  Zion  is  the  subject  of  the  prophecy 
(9:9-17).  It  is  Zion  who  is  exhorted  to  rejoice  over  her  coming 
king  (vs.  9,  10) ;  it  is  Zion  who  shall  be  released  from  prison  (vs. 
11,  12),  and  it  is  Zion  (Judah  and  Ephraim)  who  shall  conquer 
the  "sons  of  Javan"  (vs.  13-17).  Pressel  felt  the  force  of  this 
claim  and  conseqiiently  gave  up  the  idea  that  Joel  4:6,7  explains 
this  passage.  "Zion"  is  far  more  prolmbly  the  post-exilic  con- 
gregation. But  on  the  other  hand,  how  explain  the  mention  of 
the  "sons  of  Javan"  in  the  8th  century?  Could  a  jirophet  of 
that  early  age  picture  Javan  of  sufficient  importance  that  its 
defeat  would  lead  to  glory?  (C/.  Bredenkamp,  p.  99.)  The 
Greeks  are  here  represented  not  as  a  distant  and  unimportant 
people  such  as  they  would  be  in  the  8th  century,  B.  C,  but  as  a 
world-power,  as  Israels  most  formidable  antagonist,  the  victory 


34  THE  PROPHECIES  OF  ZECHAEIAH 

over  whom  inaugurates  the  Messianic  age  {c.f.  Driver,  p.  326). 
This  is  self-evident.  Consequently  Dillmann  (^Commentary  on 
Genesis,  p.  174)  frankly  allows  that  Zech.  9:13,  as  it  stands  at 
present,  refers  to  the  Macedonian  Greeks.  And  Steiner  also 
admits  (p.  381)  that  "aus  dem  8.  Jahrhundert  eine  solche  zu 
begreifen  und  hinreichend  zu  motiviren,  dtirfte  schwer  fallen." 
Most  defenders  of  the  pre-exilic  hypothesis  abandon,  therefore, 
the  idea  that  9:13  is  a  prophecy  of  the  8th  century,  and  take 
refuge  in  one  or  other  of  the  two  remaining  explanations.  (/3) 
That  the  text  is  corrupt  (Graetz,  Steiner,  Strack,  4th  ed.  p.  410. 
cf.  Kirkpatrick  who  omits  the  words  'Vti'jS  by  for  the  sake  of 
rhythm).  For  example,  Steiner  (pp.  381,  2)  on  the  authority  of 
the  Targum,  which  reads  ^X^'l'Z'S  "'Dj  ,  substitutes  for  "1''"Tj"'jS  the 
reading  D;'i3n  ^n  {cf.  Schlatter,  p.  269,  "Ueber  alle  Peinde"), 
and  explains  "V  as  a  later  addition  which  crept  into  the  text,  as 
e.g.,  Tous'EWijvas  in  the  LXX.  translation  of  Isa.  9:11.  But  the  text 
as  it  stands  was  only  possible  when  it  belongs  to,  or  was  thought 
to  belong  to  the  post-exilic  period  [cf.  Stade,  p.  152);  moreover, 
the  expression  D^'lytl  ^DS  would  in  any  case  occur  more  naturally 
in  post-exilic  writings  [cf.  Kuenen,  p.  413).  On  the  other  hand, 
the  substitution  proposed  by  Graetz,  Monats.,  p.  281,  is  still  less 
probable.  He  conjectures  that  "V  is  a  corruption  of  "pl/Offl 
Samaria,  and  compares  with  it  Zech.  10:6,  12.  According  to 
Graetz,  consequently,  Jehovah  stirs  up  the  sons  of  Zion  against 
the  sons  of  Samaria,  ?'.  e.,  Ephraim  and  Judah  against  Ephraim, 
which  is  naturally  absurd.  At  best  any  change  of  the  text  is  a 
confession  that  "|T  is  inexplicable  in  pre-exilic  times.  For  as 
Kuiper  observes  (p.  13),  "the  whole  question  of  changing  the 
text  rests  upon  the  hypothesis  that  the  prophecy  is  out  of  the  8th 
century  and  it  loses  thus  as  petitio  principii  all  worth."  The 
other  means  of  escape  is  the  unsatisfactory  refuge  of  the  mediat- 
ing hypothesis,  (y)  That  Zech.  9:13  is  one  of  the  many  post- 
exilic  inter jiolat ions  in  these  jjrophecies  (Dillmann,  Kuenen, 
Driver,  Cornill,  and  others).  Kuenen,  e.  (j.,  finds  in  chs.  9-11, 
13:7-9,  "fragments  for  the  most  part  of  8th  century  origin,  which 
were  afterwards  worked  over  and  enriched  by  a  post-exilic  though 
awkward  redactor."  Certain  passages,  he  says,  are  confessedly 
inexplicable   in   pre-exilic   times,  whereas  others  must   have  had 


THE    PROPHECIES    OF    ZECHARIAH  35 

their  origin  when  the  two  kingdoms  were  standing.  Driver  and 
Cornill  share  this  hypothesis.  But  we  are  unable  to  accept  of  it 
chiefly  because  it  is  too  unsatisfactory.  Even  Kuenen  himself 
allows  that  it  is  not  wholly  satisfying,  and  Cornill  admits  (p.  198) 
that  it  does  not  solve  the  problem.  It  is  plainly  evident,  there- 
fore that  on  the  grounds  of  the  pre-exilic  theory  a  reasonable 
explanation  of  Zech.  9:13  is  practically  unattainable.  Later  we 
shall  attempt  to  show  that  this  passage  has  both  an  occasion  and 
a  teaching  purpose  in  post-exilic  times. 

II.  The  Christological  Argument,  or  the  Argument  from 
3Iessianic  Prophecy. — The  real  value  of  this  argument  is  too 
frequently  underestimated,  especially  by  those  who  hold  the 
pre-exilic  hypothesis.  We  maintain  that  in  the  Old  Testament 
the  Messianic  idea,  at  first  only  generic  in  outline,  grows  and 
expands  and  moves  steadily  forward  with  marvelous  symmetry, 
continually  approaching  more  and  more  its  ultimate  ideal  in 
Jesus  Christ;  also  that  the  most  decisive  criteria  by  which  the 
date  of  a  given  prophecy  may  be  determined  are  newness  and  uni- 
fication. The  latter  especially,  we  hold,  is  the  best  mark  by  which 
to  judge  the  origin  of  any  Messianic  prediction.  As  the  perspec- 
tive shortens  by  the  lapse  of  time,  different  lines  of  previous 
Messianic  prediction  are  brought  together  and  unified  so  as  to 
present  a  new  and  more  complete  picture  of  the  Messiah.  When 
this  is  done  it  is  an  evidence  of  late  date.  Zechariah  furnishes 
a  most  remarkable  picture  of  this  sort.  He  takes  the  pre-exilic 
ideas  of  the  Messiah,  which  like  so  many  independent  lines  seem 
to  move  forward  and  converge,  and  he  unites  them  all  in  Joshua 
the  high-priest  (3:8,  9;  6:12,  13).*  He  selects  the  Branch  of 
Jer.  23:5;  33:15;  the  Servant  of  Isa.  40-66;  the  King  of  Ps.  72 
and  110,  Isa.  9:6,  and  11:1,  and  the  Priest  of  Ps.  110  and  blends 

♦There  is  as  littlo  roason  for  doubtinp  tho  genuineness  of  '.iiSb  (Stade,  Gesch.  Israels, 
H.,  p.  l-">;  Marti,  Der  Proph.  Sack.,  p.  85)  as  there  is  for  arguing  that  Zerubbabel  is  the 
Mosaiah  (Wollhausen,  pp.  176,  179).  In  6:12,  13.  Marti  claims  with  Ewald  and  Baur,  that 
both  Joshua  and  Zerubbabel  are  crowned.  But  (1)  this  necessitates  tho  insertion  of  bSQ'^T 
1D^'^2  after  13X11  in  v.  11,  and  of  yilTn"^  after  riTll  in  v.  13;  also  tho  change  of  llbx 
in  V.  12  to  DnbS  •  (2)  Besides,  there  is  no  example  in  the  O.  T.  whore  a  prophet  saw  in  a 
contemporary  tho  M'-ssiah  as  already  born.  I'lJ)  Moreover,  tho  prophecy  contemplates  tho 
Mossiali  as  future  (v. 12).  Ho  is  spoken  of  as  a  man  (v.  12),  not  as  the  man.  and  that  he  is  to 
be  a  priest  (v.  13).  (4)  Finally  the  crown  riUCy  (sing,  on  account  of  rT^nn  t.  14;  cf.  Job 
31  I'M)  is  to  be  a  typo,  stored  away  in  the  temple.     Wellhausen'H  text  is  self-made. 


36  THE    PROPHECIES    OF    ZECHAEIAH 

them  all  into  one  single  composite  picture  of  the  Messiah  and 
describes  him  as  Servant-Branch-Priest-King  (3:8,  9;  (3:12,  13); 
thus  heaping  upon  the  high-priest  Joshua  Messianic  terms  never 
before  associated  by  a  single  author  in  one  and  the  same  person. 
The  same  is  true  of  Zech.  9-14.  As  Delitzsch  maintains  {Mes- 
sianic Prophecij,  p.  215),  "the  author  of  Zech.  9-14  cannot  be 
a  pre-exilic  prophet,  for  the  Christological  images  move  in  the 
path  in  which  prophecy  was  directed  by  Deutero-Isaiah ;  the  So^ai 
of  the  future  Christ  are  supplemented  through  the  preceding 
-rraO^IMTa  (1  Peter  1 : 1 1 ) . "  We  shall  now  endeavor  to  examine  the 
Messianic  portions  of  Zech.  9-14,  and  for  the  sake  of  convenience 
we  shall  treat  them  under  two  heads,  viz.,  those  which  describe  the 
Messianic  Person,  and  those  which  describe  the  Messianic  Times. 
1.  The  Messianic  Person,  (a)  The  Messianic  King  (9:9, 
10).  Different  views  are  entertained  as  to  the  position  of  this 
passage  in  the  development  of  the  idea  of  Messianic  kingship. 
Orelli  {Old  Testament  Prophecy,  p.  244),  makes  it  "the  first 
passage  in  which  the  future  human  representative  of  the  divine 
kingly  dignity  is  described  in  his  personal  characteristics"  {cf. 
Riehm,  Messianic  Propliecy,  pp.  181,  182;  Briggs,  Messianic 
Prophecy,  p.  185).  Ewald  (p.  309)  is  willing  to  allow  only  that 
the  Messianic  hopes  of  Zech.  9-11  are  "ganz  so  ausgebildet  und 
gestaltet,  ganz  so  krilftig  und  so  vorwaltend"  as  the  prophecies 
of  Isaiah,  and  maintains  that  they  are  inferior  to  his  in  "schla- 
gender  Kraft  der  Rede  und  lichter  Klarheit  des  Ausdrucks." 
Graetz  {Moiiafs..  p.  281)  parallels  9:9,  10  with  Ps.  72;  Steiner 
(p.  373)  with  Micah  5:4.  Driver,  however  (p.  327),  admits 
that  the  priority  of  Zech.  9:9  sq.  to  Isaiah  may  be  questioned,  and 
remarks  with  some  reluctance  that  "the  portrait  of  the  Messiah- 
king  seems  to  be  original  in  Isaiah."  In  examining  this  passage 
we  wish  to  apply  the  tests  above  mentioned  and  ask.  Is  the  picture 
of  the  Messiah-king  in  Zech.  9:9,  10  composite?  and.  Does  it 
imply  other  descriptions,  or  add  new  features  to  the  idea  of 
Messianic  kingship?  "Rejoice  greatly,  O  daughter  of  Zion : 
Shout,  O  daughter  of  Jerusalem  :  behold  thy  King  cometh  unto 
thee."  Notice  the  prophet  does  not  say  a  King,  but  thy  King ; 
that  is,  a  definite  King,  an  expected  King,  a  King  of  whom  Zion 
had  heard  before.     Tlic  prophet  then  proceeds  to  describe  him. 


THE  PROPHECIES  OF  ZECHARIAH  37 

(1)  He  is  just  (p^'^2),  for  as  justice  is  an  essential  attribute  of 
Jehovah,  so  must  it  also  be  the  cardinal  virtue  of  the  King  who 
represents  him.  This  idea  is  not  necessarily  original  here. 
The  prophet  may  very  easily  have  borrowed  it  from  Isa.  9 : 6  or 
Jer.  23:5,  33:15,  or  both.  (2)  He  is  saved  {T^'Q),  Jehovah 
has  delivered  him  and  now  he  is  able  to  deliver  others  (vs.  lli 
12) .  This  is  a  new  feature  in  the  characterization  of  the  Messianic 
King,  quite  foreign  to  the  pre-exilic  prophets.  (3)  He  is  lowly 
(''jy).  This  too  is  a  neiv  characteristic,  and  an  expression  which, 
according  to  Rahlfs,  had  its  birth  in  the  time  of  the  exile.  It 
implies  affliction,  meekness,  humility.  (4)  He  rides  tipoii  an  ass. 
Another  mark  of  lowliness  and  a  figure  quite  too  graphic  for  the 
prophetic  mind  of  the  8th  century,  B.  C.  It  signifies  that  he 
will  come  in  the  guise  of  peace.  In  the  time  of  the  Judges, 
nobles  rode  on  asses  in  peace  and  in  war;  but  after  the  days  of 
Solomon  kings  rode  on  horses.  This  King  goes  back  to  the 
primitive  simplicity  of  Israel.  He  is  a  Prince  of  Peace,  even  as 
Isaiah  had  described  him  (9:6),  and  as  the  psalmist  through  the 
figure  of  Solomon's  quiet  reign  (Ps.  72).  But  the  difference 
between  the  psalmist's  picture  and  that  of  Zech.  9:9,  10  is  this: 
What  was  in  his  time  a  "pious  wish"  prefigured  in  the  person 
of  a  human  monarch,  becomes  later  a  "categorical  prediction" 
concerning  an  actual  King,  the  representative  of  Jehovah  {cf. 
Wellhausen,  p.  182).  (5)  Finally  his  dominion  is  described  as 
extending  from  sea  to  sea,  and  from  the  river  to  the  ends  of  the 
earth.  This  idea  of  universal  dominion  is  a  parallel  to  that  in 
Psalm  72:7,  8  and  Micah  5:2.  It  completes  the  picture  of  the 
Messiah-King  in  Zech.  9:9,  10.  The  ideas  of  justice,  peace,  and 
universal  dominion  are  old.  These  our  prophet  unities,  as  no 
single  pre-exilic  prophet  had  done,  then  adds  to  them  other  new 
features  which  can  best  be  accounted  for  after  the  humiliation  of 
the  exile.  For  example,  all  that  is  implied  in  the  terms  saved 
and  lowly  is  new.  The  idea  of  salvation  in  connection  with  the 
coming  Messianic  King  is  in  the  earlier  prophets  entirely  want- 
ing. The  idea  of  meekness  and  sutfering  is  found  in  Isaiah 
40-66  but  not  in  connection  with  the  coming  king.  But  in 
Zech.  9:9-12  the  king  is  not  only  a  ruler  of  Israel,  as  Micah 
pictures  him,  but  also  a  Saviour.     The  prophet  thus  brings  for- 


38  THE  PROPHECIES  OF  ZECHAKIAH 

ward  the  spiritual  character  of  his  rule.  The  picture  is  com- 
posite. Messianic  prophecy  here  rises  to*  the  height  of  its  con- 
summation in  reference  to  two  things:  (1)  The  spiritual  nature 
of  the  agent  by  whom  the  Messianic  kingdom  will  be  set  up  and 
guided,  and  (2)  The  salvation  resident  in  the  king  whose 
dominion  is  world-wide  (c/.  Orelli,  p.  247). 

(b)  The  Messiah-Shepherd, — rejected  {11:12,  13),  pierced 
{12 :  10 sq.) ,  smitten  {13:7).  These  three  passages  though  pecu- 
liarly difficult  are  conspicuous  on  account  of  their  Messianic 
interpretation  in  the  New  Testament.  Zech.  11:12,  13  is 
interpreted  Messianically  in  Matt.  27:9,  10;*  Zech.  12:10  in 
John  19:37;  and  Zech.  13:7  in  Matt.  26:31.  The  question  for 
us  is,  Did  they  have  a.  Messianic  value  to  the  prophet  f  Ewald 
(p.  390)  sees  Messianic  hopes  in  12-14.  but  explains  them  as 
"only  the  reaction  against  the  unnatural  condition  into  which 
the  cruelty  of  the  Chaldeans  had  placed  Judah  against  Jerusa- 
lem." Others  find  no  personal  Messiah  in  these  chapters  {e.  g., 
Montet,  p.  84;  Grtitzmacher,  p.  42;  Steiner,  p.  343).  But  this 
opinion  is  based  on  a  literal  interpretation  of  ch.  11:4-17,  a 
change  of  text  in  12:10,  and  a  transposition  of  13:7-9  from  its 
present  position  to  the  end  of  ch.  11.  Accordingly  ch.  11:4— 
17  is  a  description  of  the  Syro-Ephraimitish  war.  The  idol- 
shepherd  (11:15-17,  13:7-9)  is  Pekah,  king  of  Israel  (Griitz- 
macher.  Dillmann),  or  as  Steiner  prefers,  the  last  king  of 
Judah  (13:7-9).  But  this  is  only  speculation.  Ch.  11:4-17  is 
a  parable,  descriptive  of  the  Shepherd  of  Israel.  Not  the 
Jehovah-Shepherd,  for  he  distinguishes  himself  from  Jehovah 
(11:13),  and  not  the  prophet,  for  in  11:7  the  prophet  describes 
a  third  individual  in  the  first  person,  but  the  Messiah-Shepherd, 
who  finds  his  clearest  expression  in  13:7-9.  Language  such  as 
"my  shepherd."  "my  companion,"  "the  third  part  shall  be  left 
in  the  land  and  refined,"  applies  best  to  the  Messiah  and  to 
Messianic  times.     The   remaining   passage    (12:10)    is   likewise 

*Tliat  Matthew  slionld  liavo  ascribed  this  pr<i]>liotic  quotation  to  Jeremiali  desorves 
but  a  paHBJUK  word  as  no  ono  any  lonRcr  claims  ttiat  Joremiaii  wrote  Zecli.  9-11.  Of  tlie 
various  tiieories  devised  to  explain  the  diiliculty  the  one  usually  adopted  is  that  of  Aurus- 
tino,  Beza,  Calvin,  Kohler,  Keil,  Wripht.  and  mt>st  moderns,  viz.,  that  it  was  a  simple  slip 
of  tho  memory.  Some,  however,  appeal  to  the  original  order  of  the  Major  Prophets  in  the 
Jewish  ("anon  in  which  .Jeremiah  stood  first.  An  error  of  like  sort  sneme  to  occur  in 
2  riiron.  a6:  22,  Ezra  1:1,  2,  where  Isaiah  44;*J^S  is  ascribed  to  Jeremiah  (c/.  Brown,  Biltlical 
Literature  mtd  Ej:ege8i8,  1881-4). 


THE  PROPHECIES  OF  ZECHARIAH  39 

Messianic,  because  (1)  of  the  language,  which  identifies  the 
"sender"  with  the  "sent"  ((/.  Hitzig-Steiuer,  p.  396);  (2)  the 
spirit  of  grace  and  supplications;  and  (3)  on  account  of  the 
purification  which  follows  in  13:1.  No  mere  "  Propheten-mord  " 
(Steiner,  p.  379)  satisfies  the  entire  context,  or  expresses  the 
prophet's  vision.  We  are  constrained,  therefore,  in  spite  of  the 
difficulties  of  the  prophecy,  to  look  upon  these  passages  as 
Messianic,  and  descriptive  of  the  Messianic-Shepherd.  In  the 
first  instance  he  is  the  hireling-shejjhcrd^ll-A sq.)  who  performs 
his  task  at  Jehovah's  bidding;  in  the  second  he  is  the  martyr- 
shepherd  (12:10)  who  suffers  with  Jehovah's  permission;  in  the 
third  he  is  the  companion-sheijherd  (13:7-9)  who  is  smitten  by 
Jehovah's  fiat.  The  order  is  climacteric,  —  insulted,  pierced, 
smitten:  (1)  Shamefully  rewarded  by  the  flock;  (2)  Cruelly 
murdered  by  his  own  people;  (3)  Judicially  slain  by  Jehovah. 
The  first  brings  judgment;  the  second  produces  repentance  and 
opens  a  fountain  for  sin  and  for  uncleanness;  the  third  calls 
forth  Jehovah's  mercy  and  directs  it  upon  the  "little  ones" — the 
lesson  to  be  taught  being  that  the  Messiah  is  the  Shepherd  of 
Israel.  The  genesis  of  this  idea  is  found  in  the  pre-exilic 
prophets.  The  psalmist  had  said,  "the  Lord  is  my  Shepherd" 
(Ps.  23:1);  Jeremiah  prophesied  judgment  upon  faithless  shep- 
herds (23: 1-8),  but  neither  Jeremiah  nor  the  psalmist  represents 
Jehovah  as  the  Shepherd  of  Israel,  much  less  that  the  Messiah 
was  Israel's  shepherd.  It  was  left  for  Ezekiel  to  picture  Jehovah 
as  the  shepherd  of  his  people.  During  the  exile  when  Israel  was 
scattered  as  sheep  without  a  shepherd,  Jehovah  promises  that  he 
will  be  the  shepherd  of  his  people,  and  gather  his  scattered  sheep 
as  a  shepherd  gathereth  his  flock  (Ezek.  34: 11-16) .  Our  prophet 
follows  Ezekiel,  but  goes  beyond  him :  for  he  distinguishes 
between  the  Messiah -Shepherd  and  the  Jehovah-Shepherd  (Zech. 
11:13;  12:10;  13:7).  He  describes  also  the  fountain  of  cleans- 
ing (13:1).  With  him  it  is  no  temporary  lustration  in  case  of 
defilement,  as  in  Num.  19,  nor  a  mere  sprinkling  as  in  Ezek. 
36:25,  but  a  perennial  fountain,  first  described  by  Joel  (3:18). 
But  Joel  is  content  with  indicating  its  effect  (3:21)  without 
denoting  expressly  its  purifying  character.  Our  prophet  explic- 
itly shows  that  its  purpose  is  to  cleanse  from  sin.     Hence,  here 


40  THE    PROPHECIES    OF    ZECHAKIAH 

again  the  spiritual  side  of  cleansing  is  turned  forward,  and  we 
have  here  consequently  the  climax  of  the  idea  of  atonement  in 
the  Old  Testament.  The  good  Shepherd  is  insulted  first,  then 
pierced  by  his  people.  A  spirit  of  grace  and  supplication  is 
poured  out  upon  the  nation  and  they  repent  and  are  cleansed 
from  sin.  Finally  the  divine  fiat  goes  forth  and  the  wonderful 
tragedy  is  complete.  The  whole  is  a  most  remarkable  drama, 
bringing  us  near  the  scenes  of  Calvary.  In  Isa.  40-66  the 
prophet  enclosed  his  picture  of  the  Suffering  Servant  in  a  bright 
promise  of  exaltation;  our  prophet,  on  the  contrary,  increased 
the  terribleness  of  the  nation's  crime  by  showing  that  it  was 
also  the  decree  of  heaven.  Well  may  we  say  with  Orelli,  that 
in  Zech.  9-14  "the  Messianic  idea  has  attained  full  reality." 

2.  The  Messianic  Times — Eschaiology.  Apocalypse  marks 
the  last  stages  in  the  development  of  prophecy.  The  description 
of  the  incorporation  of  the  heathen  into  the  kingdom  of  God  in 
Zech.  9-14  is,  in  our  judgment,  the  most  remarkable  in  the  Old 
Testament  as  it  presupposes  all  that  goes  before.  As  Delitzsch 
remarks,  "the  author  takes  from  pre-exilic  relations  emblematic 
features  for  his  eschatological  pictures."  His  models  were  Joel 
and  Isaiah.  In  form  and  contents  he  follows  Joel  3,  and  like 
Isa.  19:19;  66:21,  23  he  uses  figurative  language;  for  he  knew 
that  when  these  predictions  should  be  fulfilled,  this  mode  of 
worship  would  be  abolished.  The  idea  that  the  heathen  shall 
be  converted  to  Jehovah  is  an  old  one.  It  is  asserted  in  its 
simplest  form  in  the  Song  of  Moses  (Dent.  32).  Rights  of  citi- 
zenship in  Jerusalem  are  acquired  by  the  heathen  in  Ps.  87.  Amos 
brings  about  their  conversion  by  means  of  spiritual  subjugation 
(9: 12) ;  Joel  through  the  outpouring  of  the  spirit  (2:28) ;  Zeph- 
aniah  as  the  result  of  divine  judgment  (3:9);  Isaiah  opens  up  a 
a  vista  of  wonderful  possibilities,  but  Isaiah's  picture  of  the  Mes- 
sianic future  is  often  clouded  and  indistinct  ( 11 :  10-16) .  He  does 
not  discriminate  clearly  between  the  inauguration  of  the  Messianic 
times  and  the  restoration  of  Israel  from  exile.  But  this  confusion 
of  the  two  events  might  naturally  be  expected  from  a  prophet  living 
before  that  event ;  for,  to  one  standing  on  a  lofty  vantage  ground, 
the  distant  mountain  ranges  are  not  always  easy  to  distinguish.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  prophets  who  lived  after  the  exile  are  relieved 


THE    PROPHECIES    OF    ZECHARIAH  41 

of  this  confusion.  Their  perspective  was  shorter  and  their 
horizon  broader.  More  and  more  they  identified  the  day  of  the 
Lord  witli  the  coming  of  tlie  Messiah.  This  is  especially  true  of 
Zech.  9-14.  In  all  these  prophecies  concerning  the  unique  day 
which  was  to  come,  there  is  not  the  slightest  proof  that  the 
author  ever  had  in  mind  the  return  of  Israel  from  e.rile.  He 
was  thinking  rather  of  the  Messiah  and  the  incorporation  of  the 
heathen  into  the  kingdom  of  God  (cf.  Cheyne,  JQR,  1889,  p. 
79).  Haggai  watched  the  nations  bringing  their  costliest  pos- 
sessions to  adorn  the  temple  of  Jehovah  (2:7);  Zechariah  sees 
them,  as  Isaiah  and  Micah  had  seen  them  (Isa.  2:2sg.;  Mic.4:l,2), 
streaming  thither  to  worship  Jehovah  and  eager  to  share  in 
the  privileges  of  the  chosen  nation  (2:15;  8:20-23);  for,  to 
Zechariah,  the  glory  of  the  second  temple  lay  in  its  catholicity. 
The  counterpart  of  this  picture  is  to  be  seen  in  Zech.  9-14.  As 
Wildeboer  (p.  414)  remarks:  "this  thought  (the  incorporation 
of  the  heathen)  governs  the  whole  of  chapters  12-14."  (1)  A 
remnant  of  the  Philistines,  like  the  ancient  Jebusites,  inherit 
the  blessings  of  Judah  (9:7).  (2)  All  nations  shall  in  that  day 
go  up  to  Jerusalem  from  year  to  year  to  keep  the  feast  of  taber- 
nacles (14:16-19).  This  last  passage  is  a  most  appropriate 
doxology  to  all  Old  Testament  apocalypse  [cf.  Oehler). 

Montet  (p.  91)  objects,  however,  to  the  post-exilic  origin  of 
chapter  14,  on  the  ground  that  the  nations  are  forced  to  come  up 
to  Jerusalem  to  keep  the  feast  of  tabernacles.  They  are  repre- 
sented as  coming  in  chains,  he  claims;  compelled  to  obey,  "un 
ordre,  un  ordre  ini[)6rieux  et  dur,  un  ordre  accompagn^  de  la 
menace  d'un  chatiment."  But  the  announcement  is  made  simply 
that  all  nations  shall  go  up  to  Jerusalem.  It  does  not  say  that 
they  must  go  up,  or  that  they  do  so  to  avoid  punishment.  Those 
who  remain  behind  are  the  threatened  ones.  Upon  them  shall 
be  the  plague.  Never  in  the  Old  Testament  are  the  heathen  con- 
verted to  Jehovah  by  force.  This  was  ncjt  the  Old  Testament 
method  either  before  or  after  the  exile.  Grutzmaclier  (p.  35)  in 
proof  of  the  same  hypothesis,  argues  that  chapter  14  is  pre-exilic 
as  all  the  prophets,  from  the  end  of  the  exile  on,  only  threaten 
the  heathen  with  terrible  judgment,  e.  y.,  Haggai  and  Zechariah. 
This  assertion,  as  is  evident,  completely   reverses  the  claim   of 


42  THE    PROPHECIES    OF    ZECHARIAH 

Montet,  but  like  it  is  false.  For,  while  it  is  true  that  Jer. 
12:15-17;  16:19-21  disproves  the  assertion  of  Montet,  it  is  like- 
wise true  that  Zech.  2:15  and  8:20-23,  in  which  many  people 
and  strong  nations  are  represented  as  eager  to  go  up  to  Jerusalem 
to  worship  Jehovah,  even  taking  hold  of  the  skirt  of  him  that  is 
a  Jew,  saying,  "We  will  go  with  you,  for  we  have  heard  that  God 
is  with  you,"  show  that  the  union  of  the  heathen  with  Israel  is  a 
purely  voluntary  act.  So  also  in  Zech.  9-14.  God's  providence 
brings  it  about  (c/.  Cheyne,  JQR,  1889,  p.  81).  We,  accord- 
ingly, maintain  that  the  prophecies  contained  in  Zech.  9-14, 
occupy  a  position  of  singular  importance  in  the  development  of 
Messianic  prophecy;  that  their  place  is  toward  the  close  of  pro- 
phetic revelation;  that  they  knit  together  lines  of  hope  and 
promise  concerning  the  Great  Deliverer  which  before  were 
separate,  and  add  new  features  to  the  former  descriptions  of  the 
pre-exilian  prophets.  The  Messiah-King  is  not  only  a  just  ruler 
(as  described  by  Isaiah  and  Micah),  maintaining  peaceful  and 
world-wide  dominion  (as  in  Ps.  72),  but  he  is  also  saved  and 
lowly,  coming  to  Zion  riding  upon  an  ass.  The  Messiah- 
Shepherd  not  only  endeavors  to  shepherd  the  flock  (as  Ezekiel 
had  promised  concerning  the  Jehovah -Shepherd),  but  is  insulted 
also,  pierced  and  smitten;  whereupon,  a  spirit  of  grace  is  poured 
out  (as  in  Joel)  and  the  nation  repents  and  is  cleansed  from  sin. 
The  Messiah-Shepherd  being  distinguished  from  the  Jehovah- 
Shepherd.  But  towering  over  all  is  the  prophet's  vivid  apoc- 
alypse of  the  coming  day  of  the  Lord,  when  through  the 
Messiah's  influence  all  nations  will  come  up  to  Jerusalem  to 
worship  one  Jehovah  (14:9),  and  when  everything  will  be  con- 
secrated to  his  service  ( 14 :  20-21 ) .  ( C/.  W.  J.  Beecher's  idea,  that 
chs.  9-14  may  have  been  edited  by  Zechariah  .  .  .  for  the  sake  of 
the  Messianic  doctrines  they  contain."  Old  and  New  Testament 
Student,  Oct.  1889,  p.  230.    Also  Elmslie,  Book  by  Book,  p.  33(5.) 

III.  The  Psycholorjical  Argument,  or  argument  from  jxiral- 
lelisms  in  tliought  and  language  between  Zech.  9-14  and  the 
other   prophets.* — This    argument    is    often    overestimated.     It 

•Tlio  purely  linguiatic  argument  as  drawn  out  by  Eckardt  (ZATW.,  189;i,  pp.  7(3-109) 
will  bo  (liscuBsod  later  on,  Inasmuch  as  Eckardt  makes  tlio  "Priestor  codex,"  Job,  .Joel,  Hab- 
bakuk,  Micah  (in  part).  Proverbs,  and  PKalms  the  basis,  or  Spiegolbildor  of  late  Hebrew, 
thus  assuming  what  in  part  remains  to  bo  proTou. 


THE  PBOPHEOIES  OF  ZEOHARIAH  43 

means  simply  that  there  are  certain  parallelisms  of  thought 
and  language  between  Zech.  9-14  and  other  Old  Testament 
writings  which  indicate  some  degree  of  dependence  one  upon 
the  other.  The  question  therefore  is,  did  the  author  of  Zech. 
9-14  borrow  from  others,  or  they  from  him?  There  seems  to 
be  reasons  for  thinking  that  the  author  of  Zech.  9-14  bor- 
rowed from  the  earlier  prophets.  Stahelin  claimed  that  this 
was  the  case;  likewise  de  Wette  and  others.  Stade  practically 
finds  no  limit  to  the  parallelisms  between  Deutero-Zecliariah 
and  the  former  prophets,  and  in  our  judgment  illustrates  how 
vain  it  is  to  measure  prophecy  by  line  and  plummet  (c/.  Kuiper, 
p.  116).  He  traces  almost  every  thought  of  these  chapters  to 
some  antecedent  prophecy  and  thus  deprives  the  author  of  all 
originality.  Indeed  the  author,  he  claims,  was  not  a  prophet 
but  a  scribe  who  gathered  up  the  unfulfilled  prophecies  of  his 
own  day  and  re-delivered  them  because  of  their  near  fulfil- 
ment (p.  162).  The  author  does  not  even  claim  to  be  a  prophet, 
he  continues,  but  simply  copies  and  combines  the  ideas  of  the 
earlier  prophets  in  a  most  mechanical  manner.  But  Stade 
proves  too  much.  He  damages  his  case  by  overstatement  and 
exaggeration.  Yet  Kuenen  admits  that  he  proves  the  depend- 
ence of  Zech.  12-14  on  the  earlier  prophets.  Bleek,  David- 
son, Griltzmacher,  and  others,  however,  hold  that  the  depend- 
ence is  on  the  other  side.  But  it  seems  more  probable,  with 
Perowne,  that  one  prophet  should  have  drawn  from  many, 
than  that  many  should  have  borrowed  from  one.  It  is  not  our 
purpose  to  press  this  argument  beyond  its  legitimate  limits. 
We  propose  to  treat  it  rather  as  a  corroboration  of  what 
has  been  proved  elsewhere  on  separate  grounds  than  as  an 
independent  argument.  We  have,  therefore,  sifted  the  vari- 
ous passages  that  appear  as  parallelisms  between  our  author 
and  his  predecessors,  and  offer  the  following  only  as  worthy 
of  careful  consideration,  holding  that  these  are  not  only  con- 
firmatory of  our  previous  conclusions  but  also  sufiicient  for 
our  present  purpose.  We  prefer  to  omit  doubtful  passages, 
choosing  only  those  which  are  conceded  to  have  some  degree 
of  dependence  on  each  other ;  for,  as  Montet  (p.  72)  ob- 
serves :     "  Some  passages  have  a  fortuitous  and  nccidentai  resem- 


44  THE    PROPHECIES    OF    ZECHARIAH 

blance."*  Passing  by,  therefore,  some  very  possible  quotations 
from  Micah  (5:9-14;  7:12)  found  in  Zech.  9:10,  and  others 
from  Amos  8:12,  Joel  2:28  and  Hosea  2:19  which  are  closely 
related  to  Zech.  12:10;  13:1;  11:8,  we  make  the  following 
propositions  : 

1.  That  Zech.  9-14  shows  familiarity  with  Ezekiel,  especially 
with,  chapters  32-39  {cf.  Steiner's  admission,  p.  369).  That 
certain  marked  parallelisms  really  exist  between  Ezekiel  and 
Zech.  9-11  is  not  disputed.  The  point,  therefore,  at  issue  is 
not.  Does  a  dependence  exist?  but  rather,  On  whom  does  it  fall? 
(a)  Ezek.  34:1  sq.  and  Zech.  11:4-17;  13:7-9, — pro2jhecies 
against  the  shepiherds.  The  similarities  between  these  chapters 
are  obvious  {cf.  Grtitzmacher,  p.  26):  1)  In  Ezekiel  the  shep- 
herds are  described  as  feeding  themselves  (84:3,  8,  10)  instead 
of  feeding  the  flock  (v.  2) ;  as  killing  them  that  are  fed  and  eat- 
ing the  fat  thereof  (v.  3);  as  neglecting  to  bind  up  that  which 
was  broken  (v.  4),  and  not  caring  for  the  sick,  the  driven  away 
and  the  lost  (v.  4.)  In  Zech.  ll:4sfj'.  the  possessors  of  the  flock 
are  likewise  accused  of  slaying  the  sheep  and  of  holding  them- 
selves not  guilty,  and  of  selling  the  flock  and  refusing  to  pity 
(v.  5).  2)  Therefore,  says  Jehovah  in  Ezekiel,  "I  myself  will 
seek  out  and  feed  my  flock"  (vs.  11-14);  and  in  Zech.  11:7,  "I 
will  feed  the  flock."  3)  Ezekiel  declares,  I  will  make  with  them 
a  covenant  of  peace  (v.  25),  that  they  may  dwell  safely  in  the 
land.  In  Zech.  11:10,  on  the  contrary,  the  covenant  made  in 
behalf  of  Israel  with  all  peoples  is  broken.  4)  As  a  result  of 
Jehovah's  dealings  with  the  flock  Ezekiel  twice  aflirms,  "and  they 
shall  know  that  I  am  the  Lord"  (vs,  27,  30);  in  Zech.  11:11  it 
is  also  declared  that  "  the  poor  of  the  flock  knew  that  it  was  the 
word  of  the  Lord."  5)  Both  prophets  are  also  commissioned  by 
a  "Thus  saith  the  Lord"  (Ezek.  34:1,  14;  Zech.  11:4,  15).  These 
are  the  most  important  resemblances.  On  which  side  is  the 
dependence?  Notice  the  following  considerations:  1)  Ezekiel 
frequently  repeats  the  most  important  thoughts,  e,  <].,  the  idea  of 

*MontL't  (p.  74)  rejects  all  parallels  as  unworthy  of  discussion  except  three:  viz.  (1) 
Ps.  72:8  and  Zech.  9:9,  10  in  which  case  Pa.  Tl  is  perhaps  an  8th  century  production, 
borrowed  in  Zech.  9:9,  10  by  a  couteraporaneous  prophet:  (2)  lBa.ll:15and  Zech.  10:11, 
this  chapter  of  Isaiah  having  been  written,  he  thinks,  after  722  B.C.;  (3)  ;Ho3.  2: 19,  25  and 
Zech.  Hi: 2,  9;  hero  he  admits  that  Hosea  is  borrowed  by  our  author,  but  that  is  possible  as 
he  assigns  Zech.  111:2,  9  to  the  6th  century. 


THE    PROPHECIES    OF    ZECHARIAH  45 

the  shepherds  feeding  themselves  is  found  in  vs.  3,  8  and  10;  so 
too  the  mention  of  the  fat  and  strong  of  the  fiock  (vs.  3  and  16), 
the  diseased,  the  sick,  the  broken,  the  driven  away  and  the  lost 
vs.  4  and  16) ;  and  the  fact  that  the  flock  are  scattered  (vs.  5,  6,  8, 
12,  21).  If  Ezekiel  were  borrowing  it  is  not  likely  he  would  so 
often  repeat.  2)  Certain  allusions  in  Zech.  11  -Asq.  imply  a  knowl- 
edge of  Ezek.  34,  e.  (].,  the  covenant  broken  in  Zech.  11:10  is  the 
same  as  that  promised  in  Ezek.  34:25.  And  the  "in  that  day" 
of  Zech.  11:11  is  explained  by  "the  clovidy  and  dark  day"  of 
Ezek.  34:12.  3)  Our  author  seems  to  be  influenced  by  Ezek.  34 
in  other  portions  of  his  prophecies:  e.  g.,  the  expression  "because 
there  was  no  shepherd"  (Ezek.  34:8)  occurs  in  Zech.  10:2;  also 
the  "he-goats"  D'l^Fiy  of  Ezek.  34:17  in  Zech.  10:3.  And  the 
declaration  of  Ezekiel,  "I  will  set  up  one  shepherd  over  them" 
(34:23)  gives  rise  to  the  prediction,  "there  shall  be  one  Lord 
and  his  name  one"  (Zech.  14:9).  Cf.  also  Ezek.  34:28  and  Zech. 
14:11;  Ezek.  34:12  and  Zech.  11:11.  4)  Zech.  11:4-17  is  an 
allegory,  and  allegorical  language  always  implies  that  the  facts 
are  familiar  from  which  the  lesson  to  be  taught  is  drawn.  The 
allegory  clothes  abstract  principles  in  the  imagery  of  a  fictitious 
tale ;  but  in  order  to  understand  it,  the  facts  must  be  known  before 
the  mind  can  appreciate  the  allegory.  [Cf.  Delitzsch  in  Rudelbach 
u.  Giirricke's  Zcits.,  1851,  p.  309.)  This  was  the  case,  as  we  con- 
ceive it,  with  Zech. 11 : 4-17.  The  prophet  portrayed  events  to  Israel 
which  had  long  been  the  subject  of  thought  and  consideration. 
Ezekiel's  prophecies  were  now  fulfilled.  The  two  staves  of  Ezek. 
37:16  were  long  familiar.  Israel  had  rejected  the  shepherding 
care  of  Jehovah  and  been  punished  for  it,  and  this  it  is  which 
furnishes  the  basis  of  the  allegory.  [Cf.  Kuiper,  p.  113,  and 
Stade,  ZATW.,  I.,  p.  68  sg.)  (b)  Ezek.  28:lsq.,  and  Zech. 
9:2  sq. —  dewmciations  against  Tyre  and  Sidon.  1)  Thrice  Eze- 
kiel speaks  of  Tyre  as  very  wise  (28:3,  7,  12)  also  in  Zech.  9:2 
"though  she  be  very  wise."  2)  Both  prophets  speak  of  her 
power  in  the  sea  (Ezek.  28:4;  Zech.  9:4),  and  of  her  abundance 
of  gold  and  silver  (Ezek.  28:4;  Zech.  9:4).  3)  Both  declare 
that  God  will  cast  her  out  (Ezek.  28:16,  17;  Zech.  9:4)  and 
that  she  shall  be  burned  with  fire  (Ezek.  28:18;  Zech.  9:4). 
4)  Ezekiel  further  declares  that  "  there  shall  be  no  more  a  pricking 


46  THE  PROPHECIES  OF  ZECHARIAH 

brier  unto  the  house  of  Israel  nor  any  grieving  thorn  of  all  that  are 
around  about  them"  (28:2-4);  in  Zech.  9:8  also,  "I  will  encamp 
about  my  house  because  of  the  army,  and  no  more  shall  any 
oppressor  pass  through  them."  5)  Ezekiel  further  promises  that 
the  house  of  Israel  shall  be  gathered  from  the  people  among  whom 
they  are  scattered  and  shall  dwell  in  their  own  land  (28:25,  26); 
in  Zech.  9:2  sg.,  the  prophet  describes  the  preparation  of  the 
land  for  the  return  of  the  nation  and  the  coming  of  their  king. 
These  coincidences  are  in  themselves  singularly  remarkable,  and 
the  more  so  inasmuch  as  in  each  case  the  prophets  follow  the 
same  order  of  thought.  But  the  important  inquiry  again  is,  which 
prophecy  is  the  older?  Doubtless  Ezekiel,  for  as  Stade  shows 
(I.,  p.  46)  the  section  in  Zech.  9:1-8  is  built  up  not  only  of  Ezekiel 
but  also  of  Amos  (c/.  Am.  1:6-10);  and  this  apparently  is  so 
convincing  to  Griltzmacher  that  he  does  not  deny  the  validity 
of  Stade's  claim.  (C/.  Kuiper,  p.  76).*  (c)  Ezek.  37  and  38,— 
Ephraim  and  Judah  restored  and,  imited.  This  section  of  Ezek- 
iel's  prophecies  seems  to  give  a  colouring  to  Zech.  9-14.  The 
great  governing  thoughts  in  these  chapters  are  the  following:  1) 
Ephraim  and  Judah  shall  be  brought  back  from  exile  and  united 
as  one  nation  (37:12,  IQsq.).  2)  They  shall  be  gathered,  and 
afterwards  dwell  safely  together  in  the  land  of  Israel  (38:8,  11, 
14).  3)  There  they  shall  have  one  king  (37:22,24).  4)  In 
that  day  their  enemies  shall  come  up  against  them  but  Jehovah 
will  wonderfully  deliver  them  (38:14,  18,  20)  and  send  confusion 
and  pestilence  upon  their  enemies  (38:21,  22).  5)  Finally,  the 
Lord  shall  be  magnified  and  sanctified  (38: 23).  How  completely 
these  thoughts  are  reechoed  in  Zech.  9-14  is  almost  beyond  dis- 
pute: 1)  Both  Ephraim  and  Judah  are  represented  as  already 
restored,  or  in  the  act  of  being  restored  (Zech.  9:10,  13;  10 :t),  7). 
2)  Also  as  already  occupying  a  part  at  least  of  their  possessions, 
and  as  dwelling  securely  (9:10  .sr^.,  14:11).  3)  And  as  having 
in  future  but  one  king  (14:9).  4)  Yet  as  attacked  by  hostile 
nations  coming  up  against  them  (12:2  sq.,  14:2  sg.),  but  as  deliv- 
ered by  the  wonderful  intervention  of  Jehovah  (12: 4  sq.,  14: 3  sq., 

•  Dillnmiin  (Cumm,  on  Isa.  p.  210)  assiini!^  the  prophocy  iiKainst  Tyre  in  Isa.  2.5 :  15-18  to  a 
time  after  the  rotuni  from  exile,  though  lie  pliice.s  Zoch.  9:2-4  in  the  8th  century  B.C.  But 
it  in  liiflicult  to  see  why  ho  should  shift  an  Isianic  prophocy  concerninK  Tyro  to  the  period 
of  Zechariah,  and  insist  that  that  of  Zoch.  9:2-4  bolonRs  to  the  period  of  Isaiah. 


THE  PROPHECIES  OF  ZECHARIAH  47 

c/.  especially  Ezek.  38:20  and  Zech.  14:4);  on  the  other  hand, 
all  the  enemies  of  Israel  are  described  as  confused  and  plagued 
by  Jehovah  (14:12,  13,  17).     5)   Finally,  the  Lord  is  magnified 
by  the  universal  hallowing  of  everything  to  his  name  (14:20,  21). 
The  resemblances  are  perfect;  the  only  difference  being  that  the 
prophecies  of  the  latter  are  an  advance  upon  the  former.     Zech. 
9-14  is  a  fulfilment  of  Ezek.  37  and  38.     Cf.  Hitzig,  Stud.  u. 
Krii.,  1830).     The  similarities  in  language  are  also  noteworthy. 
Little  more  could  be  expected  from  our  prophet  had  he  actually 
committed  these  chapters  of  Ezekiel  to  memory  and  written  under 
their  inspiration.     Griltzmacher  (p.  27),  who  reverses  the  depen- 
dence of  these  authors,  fails  to  show  in  what  respect  Zech.  14  must 
have  been  the  basis  of  Ezek.  38: 17  and  39:8.     (d)  Other  character- 
istic expressions  common  to  Ezekiel  and  Zech.  9-14,  whose  priority 
from  the  passages  themselves  is  uncertain:     1)  Ezek.  5:2-12,  in 
which  the  prophet  describes  how  the  people  of  Jerusalem  shall 
perish,  one-third  by  pestilence  and  famine,  another  third  by  sword, 
and  another  in  exile;  the  lesson  being  illustrated  by  the  prophet's 
dividing  his  hair,  at  the  commandment  of  the  Lord,  into  three 
parts;  in  Zech.  13:8,  9  also,  two-thirds  of  the  people  are  spoken 
of  as  doomed  to  be  cut  off,  while  a  third  part  is  left  as  a  remnant 
in  the  land.     The  similarities  of  these  two  prophecies  are  observed 
and  emphasized  by  Koster.  de  Wette,  Havernick,  Hengstenberg  and 
Stade.     2)    In  Ezek.  38:15  the  expression  "riding  upon  horses," 
D''CTC  '33"1,  occurs  also   in   Zech.   10:5.     Griitzmacher    (p.   27) 
attempts  to  show  Ezekiel's  dependence  on  Zechariah  here;  but  cf. 
Stade  I,  p.  66, —  his  allusion  to  Ezek.  23 : 6, 12.     3 )  In  Ezek.  36 :  26 
a  "new  spirit"  is  promised,  which  in  39:29  is  poured  out  upon  the 
house  of  Israel.     This  finds  a  parallel  on  a  much  higher  spiritual 
plane  in  Zech.  12: 10.     4)   The  thought  of  cleansing  is  coupled  in 
both  prophets  with  that  of  the  outpouring  of  the  Spirit  (Ezek. 
36 :  25-28 ;  Zech.  13:1).     Stade  finds  also  in  Ezek.  47:1  a  basis  f or 
Zech.  13: 1.      (So  Koster,  de  Wette,  Kuiper,  Hiivernick  and  Lowe; 
Wellhausen  in  36:25).      Cf.  the  words  "sin"  and  " uncleauness '' 
in  Zech.  13:1  with  Ezek.  36:17,23.    5)  The  expression  " every  one 
against  the  hand  of  his  neighbour,"  is  common  to  both  (Ezek. 
38:21;  Zech.  14:13).     6)  "If  not.  forbear"  (Ezek.  2:7;  3:11,27 
and  Zech.  11:12).     7)  "Roaring  of  young  lions"  (Ezek.  19:3  .sv/. 


48  THE  PROPHECIES  OF  ZECHARIAH 

and  Zech.  11:3.  cf.  Jer.  25:36-38;  49:19).  8)  "No  stranger 
iincircomcised  in  heart  nor  uncircumcised  in  flesh  shall  enter  into 
my  sanctuary"  (Ezek.  44:9),  an  observation  closely  resembling, 
though  only  approximating  the  thought  contained  in  Zech.  14:21, 
"no  more  shall  there  be  the  Canaanite  in  the  house  of  the  Lord." 
9)  Also  the  formula,  "and  they  shall  be  my  people,  and  I  will  be 
their  God"  (Ezek.  11:20,  cf.  30:25,  26;  34:80,  31),  finds  its 
counterpart  in  Zech.  13:9,  "it  is  my  people,"  and  "the  Lord  is 
my  God."  All  these  resemblances,  however  inconclusive  each  one 
may  be  when  taken  by  itself,  help  to  confirm  the  conclusion  that 
our  prophet  was  familiar  with  the  prophecies  of  Ezekiel,  and 
therefore,  that  he  lived  after  the  exile  (c/.  Wildeboer,  p.  413). 

2.  Zech.  9-14  exhibits  acquaintanceship  tvith  Jeremiah.  The 
close  relation  of  these  prophecies  to  each  other  is,  as  Griitzmacher 
(p.  25)  allows,  "unmistakable."  This  is  especially  true  of  Zech. 
9-11. —  the  more  important  section  here,  inasmuch  as  the  author 
of  chs.  12-14  is  an  alleged  contemporary  of  Jeremiah.  The 
parallels  to  be  considered  are  the  following:  (a)  Jer.  25:34-38, 
— judgment  upon  tJte  she2Jhe7-ds,  cf.  Zech.  11:1-3.  Between  these 
passages  there  is  "an  indubitable  contact,"  Griitzmacher  (p.  26) 
makes  Zech.  11:1-3  the  original,  however,  because,  as  he  thinks, 
it  is  a  literal  description  of  the  invasion  of  Tiglath-pileser,  whereas 
Jeremiah's  is  rather  a  modified  description  of  this  passage  in  the 
form  of  an  allegory.  But  the  contexts  of  both  passages  are 
opposed  to  this  intei'pretation.  That  of  Jer.  25:34-38  does  not 
easily  admit  of  an  allegory,  while  that  of  Zech.  11:1-3,  on  the 
contrary,  invites  it.  In  Jer.  25  the  prophet  is  addressing  words 
of  plain  and  simple,  yet  forcible  warning  to  the  shepherds  of  Jeru- 
salem; whereas  in  Zech.  11:1-3,  if  the  description  is  literal,  as  is 
maintained,  the  invading  Assyrians  are  described  as  employed 
chiefly  in  devastating  the  country,  felling  cedars,  spoiling  forests, 
destroying  the  oaks  of  Bashan,  etc.  The  true  explanation  of 
these  two  related  passages,  according  to  our  opinion,  is  this:  Jer. 
25:34-38  is  a  simple  description  of  Judah"s  impending  calamity; 
whereas,  Zech.  11:1-3  is  an  allegorical  introduction  to  the  alle- 
gory par  excellence  which  follows  in  verses  4-17.  Both  together 
(?*.  e.,  Zech.  11:1-3  and  4-17)  describe  the  solemn  but  historical 
past  of  Israel  and  Judah.     The  marks  of  Zechariah's  posteriority 


THE    PROPHECIES    OF    ZECHARIAH  49 

are  found  principally  in  the  context  [cf.  Jer.  25:34:;  12:3,  and 
tlj"inn  "S^  of  Zech.  11:4,  7).  In  Jeremiah  the  days  of  Israel's 
slaughter  are  accomplished;  in  Zechariah,  on  the  other  hand, 
Israel  is  admonished  to  learn  a  lesson  from  that  slaughter, 
(b)  Jer.  23:lsq. —  Israel's  promised  restoration.  Cf.  especially 
Zech.  10:3-12.  In  both  passages,  it  is  announced  that  the  evil 
shepherds  shall  be  punished  and  that  scattered  Israel  shall  be 
gathered  {cf.  Grutzmacher,  p.  2G);  but  with  this  difference,  viz., 
that  in  Zech.  10:6,  8,  Israel  is  already  gone  into  captivity  while 
those  remaining  in  exile  are  exhorted  to  return  home.  The  pic- 
ture of  the  Messianic  King  in  Jer.  23 : 3  is  not  nearly  so  vivid  or 
complete  as  that  in  Zech.  9:9,  10  (c/.  Jer.  17:25;  22:4,  "Sy). 
Again,  the  promise  in  Jer.  23:3  to  gather  the  remnant  of  Israel 
out  of  all  countries  {cf.  ^"nyZ'ZTT\ )  is  far  less  definite  than  that 
of  Zech.  10:6,  "I  will  strengthen  the  house  of  Judali  and  I  will 
save  the  house  of  Joseph  and  they  shall  be  as  though  I  had  not 
cast  them  off."  And  also,  Jer.  23:3,  "they  shall  be  fruitful  and 
increase,"  describes,  according  to  our  view,  an  earlier  stage  in  the 
history  of  Israel  than  Zech.  10:8,  "and  they  shall  increase  as  they 
have  increased."  {Cf  also  Jer.  23:8  and  Zech.  10:8,  10;  Jer. 
23:33  sg.  and  Zech.  9:1, 12,  1).  (c)  Other  expressions  char- 
acteristic of  Jeremiali  found  hut  once  in  Zech.  9-11  are  the 
folloiving:  1)  Three  times  Jeremiah  uses  the  technical  phrase, 
"the  pride  of  Jordan,"  'yTfT^  ■pKj  (12:5;  49: 19;  50:44) ;  the  same 
metaphor  occurs  outside  of  Jeremiah  only  once,  viz.,  in  Zech. 
11:3  {cf.  Grtitzmacher,  p.  26).  The  expression  is  of  late  origin, 
probably  out  of  the  exile  (Koster,  p.  80).  2)  The  use  made  of 
nbuJ  "casting  away  in  contempt  (Jer.  26:23,  36:30)  may  well 
have  suggested  the  phraseology  of  Zech.  11:13.  3)  The 
word  yiT  "sow,"  employed  in  a  good  sense  in  Jer.  31:27  (but 
also  in  Ezek.  36:9,  cf.  Hos.  2:25),  finds  a  corresponding  use  in 
Zech.  10:9.  4)  The  contrast  also  between  the  teraphim  and 
soothsayers  and  the  power  of  Jehovah  to  give  rain  stands  out 
strikingly  in  Jer.  14:22,  cf.  2S):%sq.,  but  also  in  Zech.  10:2.  5) 
Stade  finds  another  parallel  between  Jer.  46:10,  "the  sword  shall 
devour  and  it  shall  be  satiate  and  made  drunk  with  their  blood," 
and  Zech.  9:15.  "and  they  shall  devour  and  drink,  etc." 

In  Zech.  12-14  also,  certain  passages  occur  which  show  the 


50  THE    PROPHECIES    OF    ZECHARIAH 

author's  dependence  on  Jeremiah.  Thus  in  Zech.  14:10,  "unto 
the  tower  of  Hannaneel"  and  "the  gate  of  the  corner,"  are  meas- 
urements taken  from  Jer.  31 :  38,  as  v.  40  clearly  indicates.  And 
in  Zech.  13:7  the  phrase,  "upon  the  little  ones,"  is  borrowed  from 
Jer.  48:4  {cf.  14:3  D"'"iy:;n  ).  And  the  phrase,  "all  the  families," 
frequently  used  in  Zech.  12:12-14  is  found  in  different  parts  of 
Jeremiah  (1:15;  2:4;  10:25;  25:9;  31:1;  33:24). 

3.  Close  resemblances  exist  behveen  Zech.  9-14  and  Isa. 
40-66.  The  value  of  this  point  is  enhanced  by  the  fact  that  all 
those  who  place  Zech.  9-14  before  the  exile,  urge  an  exilic  or 
post-exilic  date  for  Isa.  40-66.  We  are  thus  dealing  with  a 
prophecy  written  in  their  opinion  long  after  the  prophecies  under 
discussion,  and  therefore  in  no  sense  the  basis  of  chs.  9-14.*  That 
a  close  relation  actually  exists  between  these  two  prophecies  in 
thought  and  language  is  openly  admitted  (Ewald,  v.  Ortenberg, 
Hengstenberg,  Stade,  Grutzmacher,  and  others).  Here  again, 
therefore,  the  important  inquiry  to  be  made  is,  on  whose  side 
does  the  dependence  rest?  To  us  it  is  sufficiently  clear  that  the 
author  of  Zech.  9-14  depended  on  Isa.  40-66  not  only  for  various 
characteristic  expressions,  but  also  for  his  eschatological  pictures. 
For  example,  (o)  the  promise  in  Zech.  9:11,  "I  have  sent  forth 
thy  prisoners  out  of  the  pit  wherein  is  no  water,"  reminds  one  of 
four  similar  passages  in  Isa.  40-66,  viz.,  42:22,  "they  are  hid  in 
prison-houses"  (cf.  v.  7);  49:9,  "say  to  the  prisoners,  go  forth"; 
51 :  14,  "  the  captive  exile  hasteneth  that  he  may  be  loosed  and  that 
he  should  not  die  in  the  pit";  and  61:1,  "to  proclaim  liberty  to 
the  captives  and  the  opening  of  the  prison  to  them  that  are 
bound."  Bleek  acknowledges  the  resemblance  here.  Grutzmacher 
passes  it  over  in  silence.  (6)  In  Zech.  9:12  the  promise  occurs, 
"I  will  render  double  unto  thee"  (i.  e.,  double  blessing).  This 
form  of  expression  is  somewhat  rare,  but  it  occurs  in  Isa.  40-66 
twice;  once  in  61:7,  "for  your  shame  ye  shall  have  double,  in 
their  land  they  shall  possess  double:  everlasting  joy  shall  be  unto 
them;"  and  in  40:2,  "Jerusalem  has  received  double  for  all  her 
sins."  (Cy.  Jer.  16:18.)  Dillniann  explains  the  dependence  of 
Zech.   9:12   on  Isa.   40:2  and   ()1:7  in  this  instance  by  making 

*  Tho  unity  of  Isa.  40  G6  is  uot  necessarily  assumed  hero  as  the  passages  oniployecl  in  our 
arKument  are  usually  if  not  universally  allowed  to  bo  of  exilic  or  early  post-oxilic  oriKin, 
(Cf.  Schiau's  Ehed-Jahwe  Lieder,  Dissert.;  Cornill's  Einleit.;  Duhni's  Jea.,  and  Cheyue's 
Introduction  to  Isaiah.) 


THE  PROPHECIES  OF  ZECHAKIAH  51 

Zech.  9:12  "eine  spatere  Ueberarbeitung,"  but  without  sufficient 
reason,  (c)  In  Zech.  12:1  Jehovah  is  described  as  "He  who 
stretcheth  forth  the  heavens  and  layeth  the  foundations  of  the 
earth  and  formeth  the  spirit  of  man  within  him."'  This  descrip- 
tion of  Jehovah  is  an  idea  frequently  found  in  Isa.  40-66 ;  e.  g., 
51:13,  Jehovah  is  the  Creator,  "who  stretched  forth  the  heavens 
and  laid  the  foundations  of  the  earth  "i::i1  D'- TT  PitDD  ;  in  ii :  24, 
"that  stretcheth  forth  the  heavens  alone,  that  spreadeth  abroad 
the  earth  by  myself."  {Cf.  45:12;  40:21,  22;  42:5;  48:13;  51: 
16.)  Here  again  it  is  evident  that  our  prophet  is  the  borrower, 
Grfitzmacher  (p.  28)  is  unable  to  decide,  (d)  In  Zech.  12:2 
Jerusalem  is  spoken  of  as  "a  cup  of  trembling,"  by"!  ~,D .  This 
is  a  characteristic  expression  of  Isa.  40-66.  Jeremiah  speaks  of 
a  "cup  of  trembling."  In  Isa.  51:17b,  the  prophet  declares, 
"thou  hast  drunken  the  dregs  of  the  cup  of  trembling;"  "even 
the  dregs  of  the  cup  of  trembling"  (v.  22,  bn  ClS).  (e)  Stade 
finds  a  further  foundation  for  the  announcement  in  Zech.  9:9, 
" Behold  thy  king  cometh,"  in  Isa.  62:11,  "  Behold,  thy  salvation 
Cometh."  He  also  parallels  the  attributes  of  the  Messianic  King, 
"just"  and  "saved"  (Zech.  9:9),  with  the  attributes  of  Jehovah 
in  Isa.  45:21  {cf.  61:10;  Jer.  17:25;  22:4).  (/)  The  eschatolog- 
ical  resemblances  between  Isa.  40-66  and  Zech.  9-14  are  particu- 
larly striking  [cf.  Grtitzmacher,  p.  28).  The  vision  of  our 
prophet  that  "all  nations  shall  come  up  to  Jerusalem"  to  worship, 
is  a  thought  frequently  occurring  in  Isa.  40-()6;  <?.  ^.,  55:5,  "and 
nations  that  knew  not  thee  shall  run  unto  thee;"  56:6,  7,  "mine 
house  shall  be  a  house  of  prayer  for  all  people"  {cf.  66:18-20, 
23).  All  these  are  reechoed  in  Zech.  14:16sg.  Further,  a 
curse  is  pronounced  by  our  prophet  upon  those  who  refuse  to 
come  up  to  keep  the  religious  observances  of  the  sanctuary: 
"  their  flesh  shall  consume  away  and  their  eyes  and  their  tongues 
shall  consume  away"  (Zech.  14:12;  cf.  Isa.  06:24);  and  the 
nature  of  the  punishment  described  is  similar.  In  Zech.  14:12, 
13  plagues  of  disease  are  followed  by  tumult,  and  that  by  inter- 
necine war;  in  Isa.  (50:12  they  utterly  waste  away  and  jaerish  out 
of  sight.  Lastly,  in  both  prophecies  a  transition  is  made  to  holi- 
ness. In  Zech.  14:20,21,  the  prophet  describes  a  time  when 
holiness  shall  be  inscribed  on  everything,  even  on  the  bells  of  the 


52  THE    PROPHECIES    OF    ZECHABIAH 

horses;  in  Isa.  61:6;  62:12,  the  prophet  likewise  describes  a  time 
when  the  people  shall  be  as  holy  as  the  priests,  and  when  they 
shall  be  called  the  '"ministers  of  God."  Just  here  lies  an  impor- 
tant distinction  between  these  prophecies,  which  favors  a  much 
later  origin  for  Zech.  14,  viz.,  the  broader  catholicity  and  more 
extended  universalism  of  our  prophet  which  enables  him  to  rise 
above  Hebrew  prejudice,  and  picture  even  the  heathen  serving  as 
priests,  offering  sacriiice  in  the  ordinary  cooking  vessels  of  Jeru- 
salem to  the  Jehovah  of  Israel. 

Thus  in  these  parallelisms  between  Zech.  9-14,  on  the  one 
hand,  and  Isa.  40-66,  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel  on  the  other,  we 
have  the  strongest  possible  corroboration  of  the  late  origin  of 
Zech.  9-14.  Every  great  section  of  Zech.  9-14  shows  familiarity 
with  the  older  prophets.  Their  thoughts  were  not  infrequently 
our  author's  thoughts,  their  order  his  order,  and  their  phrase- 
ology his  phraseology.  Moreover,  great  sections  of  their  writings 
taken  as  a  whole  evidently  gave  rise  to  paragraphs  of  Zech.  9-14 
taken  as  a  whole  (c/.  especially  Isa.  66  with  Zech.  14  and  Ezek. 
34  with  Zech.  ll:4sg.). 

Here  then  in  conclusion  are  our  reasons  for  arguing  a  post- 
exilic  date  for  Zech.  9-14.  Whatever  else  may  be  shown  later 
on  concerning  the  unity  of  chs.  9-14,  we  believe  that  it  has  been 
made  reasonably  clear,  and  on  grounds  of  internal  evidence  alone, 
that  the  last  six  chapters  of  Zechariah  are  of  post-exilic  origin. 
For,  as  we  have  shown,  the  "historical  allusions"  are  consistent 
with  a  late  date,  the  development  of  "Messianic  prophecy"  in  the 
O.  T.  favors  it,  and  the  literary  and  psychological  relations  of  our 
author  to  the  former  prophets  corroborate  it.  Hence,  without 
pressing  unduly  our  claims,  we  submit  that  there  are  good  critical 
reasons  for  assigning  these  disputed  prophecies  to  a  post-exilic 
date.  We  shall  next  endeavor  to  determine  in  what  particular 
period  after  the  exile  they  had  their  origin. 

III. 

THE    POST-ZECHARIAN    HYPOTHESIS    EXAMINED. 

If  our  previous  conclusions  are  accepted,  the  problem  before 
us  now  is  to  decide  in  which  period  or  periods  of  post-exilic  times 
these  prophecies  of  Zech.  9-14  find   their  best  historic  setting. 


THE    PKOPHECIES    OF    ZECHARIAH  53 

Paucity  of  details  in  the  history  of  Zechariah's  own  age  has  given 
room,  for  different  theories.  Many  authorities  favor  a  post-Zech- 
arianic  date,  the  most  important  of  whom  in  modern  times  are 
Stade,  Wellhausen,  Kuenen,  Marti,  Kautzsch,  Cornill,  Cheyne, 
Delitzsch,  Kirkpatrick,  Rubinkam,  Driver,  Staerk,  Wildeboer, 
Kuiper  and  Eckardt.  They  employ  the  same  critical  methods  as 
those  whose  views  we  have  just  discussed,  but  arrive  at  widely 
divergent  results.  Even  among  themselves  there  is  a  marked 
difference  of  opinion.  For  example,  Wellhausen  and  Marti,  rep- 
resenting the  extreme  view  of  this  school,  place  these  chapters  in 
the  2d  century  B.  C.  Wildeboer  assigns  the  date  ±280;  Kautzsch, 
301;  Stade  and  Cornill,  306-278;  Kuiper,  the  period  immediately 
following  332.  Rubinkam  and  Staerk  argue  for  double  author- 
ship—  one  author  having  lived,  as  is  alleged,  in  the  time  of  Alex- 
ander the  Great,  the  other  in  the  Maccabean  age.  Kuenen  finds 
pre-exilic  kernels  in  9-11;  13:7-9,  which  were  worked  over  after 
the  exile,  but  maintains  that  the  whole  is  pre-Grecian.  Graetz 
suggests  for  ch.  14  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes  III.  Delitzsch  assigns 
the  whole  to  the  time  just  before  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  or  not  later 
than  -458  B.  C,  while  Kirkpatrick,  though  advocating  a  double 
authorship,  finds  no  period  so  suitable  as  the  first  year  of  the  reign 
of  Xerxes,  485  B.  C.  From  this  ascending  scale  of  individual 
opinion,  therefore,  it  is  evident  that  there  is  a  gradual  approach 
toward  the  period  in  which  Zechariah  himself  lived,  viz.,  the 
reign  of  Darius  Hystaspes,  521  sq.  B.  C.  The  balance  of  opinion, 
however,  is  in  favor  of  the  period  after  333 ;  and  hence  the  prime 
question  to  be  discussed  here  is,  Are  these  prophecies  of  Persian  or 
of  Greek  origin  ?  Or,  more  definitely,  in  view  of  the  dark  century 
between  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  and  Alexander  the  Great,  of  which 
so  little  comparatively  is  known,  Are  these  prophecies  early  Per- 
sian or  Graeco-Maccabean  ? 

In  examining  the  conclusions  of  those  who  maintain  a  post- 
Zecharian  origin  of  these  chapters  we  need  constantly  to  distin- 
guish sharply  between  the  grounds  advanced  in  support  of  a 
post-exilic  and  those  which  argue  a  post-Zecharian  date.  The 
former  we  may  for  the  most  part  accept;  the  latter  we  are  bound 
first  to  examine.  A  very  large  proportion  of  Stade's  extended 
discussion,  for  example,  proves  only  that  Zech.  9-14  is  post-exilic. 


54  THE    PROPHECIES    OF    ZECHAEIAH 

With  this  we  are  no  longer  concerned.  We  are  concerned,  how- 
ever, with  the  reasons  given  by  him  and  others  for  assigning 
these  oracles  to  the  Graeco-Maccabean  age.  And  to  these,  there- 
fore, we  turn  our  attention  next.  They  are  of  two  sorts,  linguistic 
and  historical.* 

I.  The  Argument  from  Language  and  Style. —  This  argu- 
ment is  weakened  unfortunately  by  two  facts:  (1)  the  fact  that 
the  author  of  Zech.  9-14  depends  so  largely  on  older  prophecies 
for  his  thoughts,  and  consequently  more  or  less  for  his  language; 
and  (2)  the  fact  that  these  prophecies  are  very  brief,  at  best  not 
exceeding  in  length  an  ordinary  newspaper  article.  Hence,  the 
danger  of  ■  pressing  the  linguistic  argument  too  far.  Eckardt, 
who  [ZATW.,  p.  16  sq.,  1893)  presents  a  most  admirable  dis- 
cussion of  the  use  of  language  in  Zech.  9-14,  arrives  at  the  con- 
clusion that  these  prophecies  could  have  been  written  "'only  in 
Grecian  times."     This  conclusion  we  propose  to  examine. 

It  is  now  generally  agreed  f  that  the  most  imj^ortant  marks  of 
the  late  origin  of  a  Hebrew  writing  are  Aramaisms;  script io  plena 
*i  and  ■'— -r;  ""jt^  instead  of  ■'^DK  ;  the  abstract  endings  "i —  and 
"i^;^;  the  nota  accnsativi  PX  with  suffixes;  the  omission  of  the 
article,  or  its  position  between  the  substantive  and  its  adjective; 
the  clumsy  repetition  of  words  and  groups  of  words;  and  the 
infinitive  absolute  as  a  means  of  setting  forth  a  finite  verb. 

1.  Aramaisms  in  Zech.  9-14.  Our  author  is  remarkably 
free  of  Aramaic  expressions.  Such  words,  e.  g.,  as  "|13T  for  fC? 
or  'ji  for  ^TliX ,  frequently  found  in  the  latest  literature  of  the 
O.  T.,  are  entirely  wanting  in  chs.  9-14.  Even  the  few  words 
which  do  occur,  whose  roots  are  often  found  in  later  Aramaic, 
Syriac  and  Arabic,  indicate  only  the  author's  Aramaic  tendencies; 

"  Wo  sot  aside  auy  objections  wliicli  the  liistory  of  the  Canon  of  the  Prophets  opposes  to 
the  theory  that  an  O.  T.  prophecy  could  possibly  be  as  late  as  tlio  period  of  the  Maccabees. 
Inasmuch  as  the  term  "Canon"  beint;  not  of  Jewisli  but  of  ('liristian  origin,  it  is  still  an 
open  question  whether  additions  may  not  have  been  made  after  250  B.  C. — the  date  a^'reed 
upon  as  to  the  formation  of  the  proplittic  portion  of  tlio  O.  T.  ((/.  H.  E.  Ryle,  Canon  of  Ihe 
O.  T.,  p.  109 ;  Eicldioru,  Introduction  io  thi-  O.  T.,  p.  79 ;  F.  Buld,  Canon  and  Text  of  the  O.  T. 
(Edb.  Trans.),  p.  11 ;  X.  Koonig,  Essai  sur  la  Formation  du  Canon  de  Vancien  testament,  p,  50 ; 
Paris,  1894  ;  Kautzsch,  Die  heil.  Schrift  dcs  A.  7'.,  mi4). 

t  Cf.  the  siKus  of  late  Hebrew  given  by  Eckardt,  ZATW.,  189:i,  pp.  76-109;  Kautzsch, 
.ffe6raisc/ier;ru7«ma(ifc,  2.5th  ed.,  1889;  Dulil,  Hcb.-Aram.  Handwlrrterbuch  in  Verbindnng  mit 
Proff.  .Socin  und  Zimmem,  12th  ed.,  ISg.j ;  Holzinger,  "  Spraclicliaractcr  u.  .Vbfas.-iungszeit  des 
Buchos  Joel"  (ZATW.,  p.  89s9.,  1889)  ;  Oiosobrecht,  "Zur  Hcxatouchkritik,"  and  "  Ucber  die 
Abfassungszeit  dorPsalmon"  (ZATW.,  p.  177 a?.,  1881-2) ;  Rouss,  Oeschichte  der  heil.  Schriften 
des  A.  r.,2ded.,  1890. 


THE  PROPHECIES  OF  ZECHARIAH  55 

for,  as  Eckardt  shows,  the  same  words  all  occur  in  classical 
Hebrew.  For  example,  n^lT  (9:15)  from  TV^'  {cf.  Mishna  Ara- 
maic nn^lT,  i-oi,  XJ^I))  occurs  in  Ps.  144:12.  bnn  (11:8)  V.^ 
is  d.  A.  But  cf.  nbnh'J  (Prov.  20:21).  nj:";  (14:3)  occurs  in 
Jer.  20:5;  Ezek.  22:25;  Prov.  20:15  and  frequently  in  the  later 
books.  :r\^  (1^:3)  is  found  also  in  Job  38:23;  Eccl.  9:18;  Ps. 
55:22;  68^31;  78:9;  144:1.  byn  (12:2)  as  noun  is  d.  X.;  but  as 
verb,  occurs  in  Nah.  2:4   {cf.  Aram,  byi ,  Syr.  Vi..?  and  Arab. 

Jjx^l  Jx.^).  The  form  T\b'S')T\  is  found  in  Isa.  51:17,22.  bjT2 
(14:2)  occurs  in  Jer.  8:2;'beut.  28:30;  Isa.  13:16.  These  words 
can  only  indicate  that  9-14  are  post-exilic,  and  in  no  way,  as 
Eckardt  allows,  that  these  chapters  are  necessarily  Greek.  Two 
instances  of  greater  value  occur,  however,  in  which  the  Aramaic 
ending  H  is  substituted  for  the  Hebrew  H:  e.  g.,  n2S"J  (9:8) 
instead  of  "^ZITZ ,  and  nnX  (12:5)  for  N^JS .     BuVthe  first 

TT«'  t;-^  '  t:v 

root  actually  occurs  with  an  it  in  the  word  ^ISQII  (14:12);  and 
the  second  in  1X2.1T  ,  and  )1C1'2'>2  also  with  H  (10^10  and  11:6). 
This  vacillating  change  of  our  author  from  one  orthography  to 
another  is,  as  we  shall  see  later,  one  of  his  most  noteworthy  lit- 
erary characteristics.  One  other  possible  Aramaism  in  these 
chapters  remains  to  be  discussed,  viz.,  the  change  of  an  S  to  "'  in 
the  word  "iHi^H  (11:13),  intended  for  ^iSii^n  according  to  many. 
The  proposed  emendation,  however,  is  doubtful.  For,  as  Well- 
hausen  (p.  187)  shows,  the  present  incorrect  reading  may  be 
intentional  on  the  part  of  the  Massoretes,  in  which  case  this 
instance  cannot  be  reckoned  as  an  Aramaic  usage  of  our  author; 
or,  the  text  may  be  correct  as  it  stands.  This  latter  explanation 
has  in  its  favor  the  word  T^'bllin  (Hiph.),  used  so  commonly  in 
the  O.  T.  in  the  sense  of  fling  or  cast  away  in  contempt  (cf.  Gen. 
37:22;  Num.  35:20,22;  Neh.  9:26;  2  Kgs.  7:15;  Ezek.  20:8; 
28:85;  28:17),  which  indicates  that  the  thirty  pieces  of  silver 
are  an  insult  to  the  Shepherd,  and,  as  we  may  naturally  infer,  too 
profane  for  the  temple  treasury. 

2.  Scriptio  plena  is  a  proof  of  late  authorship.  The  name 
TT^  especially,  according  to  Eckardt  (p.  90),  has  great  worth  in 
determining  the  period  to  which  these  prophecies  belong.  Down 
until  the  end  of  the  4th  century  B.  C.   the  custom  was  to  write 


56  THE  PROPHECIES  OP  ZECHAEIAH 

scrij)i'to  defectum  11^ .  The  full  form,  or  scrvptio  plena  T'TH  as 
here,  must  have  been  the  original  orthography  of  our  author,  as 
no  copyist  would  have  changed  it.  Hence,  as  the  scriptio  plena 
TTi  is  invariably  employed  in  these  prophecies,  Eckardt  con- 
cludes (p.  90)  that  our  author  must  have  written  in  the  Greek 
period.  But  at  most  the  name  "David"  occurs  only  six  times  in 
Zech.  9-14  and  in  a  single  context  of  as  many  verses  (12:7-12). 
Koheleth  (one  of  the  latest  books  in  the  O.  T.)  has,  on  the  con- 
trary, TTn  (1:1).  Hosea  and  Amos,  on  the  other  hand,  have  Til 
(Hos.  3:5;  Am.  6:5;  9:11), —  in  all  four  exceptions  to  Eckardt's 
rule.  Moreover,  the  date  of  the  transition  from  the  scriptio 
defect iva  to  the  scriptio  plena,  assigned  by  him  to  "the  end  of 
the  4:th  century  B.  C,"  is  wholly  arbitrary,  and  as  far  as  can  be 
ascertained  was  not  a  sudden  but  a  gradual  change  which  took 
place  in  the  development  of  Hebrew  literature  (e/.  Bonk,  ZATW., 
XI.,  127  sg.).  Furthermore,  the  date  of  a  given  prophecy  can 
hardly  be  decided  on  the  basis  of  a  single  word  and  that  a  proper 
name.  A  much  more  decisive  criterion  is  the  general  custom  of 
the  author  with  reference  to  full  or  defective  orthography.  In 
this  respect  Zech.  9-14  is  a  particularly  interesting  study.  "The 
scripdio  plena  and  defectira  are  confused  in  a  most  striking 
manner;  e.g.,  'Zyi  (9:9),  but  "JJji;  (10:4):  Tin  (11:10),  but 
nsn  (11:14);  iZ-'Zin  (9:5),  but  l-^'Zh  (10:5,11);  Db">rlT  mi!^ 
(12:7),  but  DblTlT  a-oJr  (12:8);  ninS'JJ-i  (12:14)  and  nnE'jitJ 
(12:14  twice).  Eckardt  allows  that  the  orthography  of  our 
author  is  very  remarkable. 

3.  The  preponderance  of  the  form.  ^;x  over  "'DDS  is  a  further 
mark  of  late  authorship.  Giesebrecht's  law  is  (p.  256),  "the 
later  the  writing  the  greater  the  preponderance  in  favor  of  "'DS." 
But,  applying  this  law  to  the  prophecies  in  hand,  as  a  matter  of 
fact  the  form  ";5<  occurs  in  9-14  but  twice  (10:6;  13:9),  whereas 
^wbS:  five  times  (11:6.16;  12:2;  13:5  twice).  This  unfavorable 
phetiomenon,  however,  which  cannot  be  accounted  for,  as  Eckardt 
admits  (p.  95)  on  the  ground  that  the  shorter  form  is  borrowed 
from  older  passages,  is  attributed  by  him  "to  the  deliberate 
choice  of  the  learned  author  who  made  use  of  the  more  seldom 
expression  because  it  had  to  him  a  weightier  and  more  solemn 


THE    PROPHECIES    OF    ZECHARIAH  57 

ring"  (p.  97).  But  this  is  hardly  satisfactory  in  view  of  the  fact 
that  in  Lamentations,  Koheleth,  Esther,  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  1  Chron- 
icles, 2  Chronicles  and  Daniel  ^DS  occurs  109  times  against  "53X 
three  times;  and  that  in  Ezekiel,  Haggai,  Zech.  1-8  and  Malachi 
^3i|i  is  found  155  times,  while  '^jbS  but  twice.  This  shows  that 
the  use  of  "^DX  became  too  universal  before  the  3d  century  B.  C. 
to  allow  of  the  frequent  use  of  "'jbS  in  Zech.  9-14.  Eckardt's 
attempt  to  explain  the  frequent  use  of  nSH  with  personal  pronoun 
and  participle  instead  of  JISm  with  pronominal  suffix  and  participle 
is  correspondingly  weak. 

4.  The  ending  "li  is,  according  to  Eckardt,  a  further  sign 
of  the  late  origin  of  Zech.  9-14;  e.  g.,  "pn^a  (9:12),  "'iSSp'; 
(14:6)  and  the  three  words  of  like  ending  in  12:4,  viz.,  "in^aP  , 
"iiy312J  and  "lilW .  These  last  three,  however,  arise  out  of  Deut. 
28:28  (which,  according  to  Cornill  and  Eckardt,  is  exilic)  and 
therefore  are  not  claimed  in  proof  of  Greek  origin.  The  other 
two  find  early  post-exilic  parallels  in  Zech.  6:14  "li'^STb  and  Hag. 
2:17  -pS^m  and  ■|ip^.=;n!l . 

5.  The  frequent  use  of  the  nota  accusativi  flN  especially 
icith  suffixes.  In  chs.  9-14  riS  with  suffixes  occurs  but  six  times: 
DniS  (10:3),  D=n»  (11:9),  -ni*  (11:11),  init  (11:10;  11:13; 
13:9);  in  Zech.  1-8,  on  the  contrary,  nine  times:  Dnk  (2:4;  8:8), 
azm  (2:10,  12;  8:13),  '^m  (3:4),  nns^  (5:8),  ^nii  (6:8;  8:14). 
This  unfavorable  phenomenon  in  9-14  Eckardt  endeavors  (p.  97) 
to  account  for  on  the  part  of  our  author  "less  through  intent  than 
good  schooling  and  subject  matter"  {cf.  Hag.  2:3  iri!^  and  2:17 

D^ns). 

6.  Eckardt  also  ohserres  (p.  98)  tliaf  the  article  is  strik- 
ingly wanting  in  9-14  in  the  foUotoing  instaiiccs:    DlSi   ('•^'•1)) 

"p^iii-'S  (9:7),  "Sias  (9:16),  nto  (10:7),  n^::an  -^t  {ii-.'i!), 

pTTK^n  ^yffl  (14:10),  D'oilp-bS  (14:5),  C3""^n-"a  (14:5),  and 
1T\Tr  T]b"jS  ninnirnb  (14:16, 17), —  in  all  nine  instances.  But 
it  is  quite  possible  to  reduce  this  number  in  importance  and 
value.  In  four  of  these  cases  the  absence  of  the  article,  if  not 
intentional,  may  be  due  to  the  Massoretic  vocalization;  e.  g.,  DHS 
(9:1),  following  the  analogy  of  Dn«  in  Isa.  2:9,  11;  Deut.  32 :V; 
2  Sam.  7:14;  Ps.  11:4;  12:2,9;  14^2,  may  be  here  used  in  a  col- 


58  THE  PBOPHECIES  OF  ZECHABIAH 

lective  sense,  implying  "mankind"  in  general.  Or  it  may  be  a 
corruption  of  D"i5t,  Syria,  in  which  case  the  article  would  be 
superfluous.  Or  it  may  possibly  have  been  omitted  on  account 
of  the  highly  poetic  character  of  ch.  9.  The  proper  name  ■'C13"'3 
(9:7)  without  the  article  also  may  be  explained  in  one  of  two 
ways:  either  as  a  mistake  of  Massoretic  vocalization;  e.  g.,  3  may 
quite  as  easily  be  pointed  3  (c/.  Kautzsch-Gesenius,  Gramni.,  25*' 
Aufl.,  §  126,  3,  d) ;  or,  the  name  being  singular,  the  article  is  not 
necessary  [cf.  Kautzsch-Gesenius,  Gramm.,  §125,  2).  The  form 
"|Kb23  (9:16)  is  another  doubtful  example  of  the  failure  of  the 
article.  The  phrase  isy  "i^IJS  may  mean  either  "as  sheep  that  are 
his  people  "  (Steiner) ,  or  "  as  a  flock  of  his  people  " ;  both  of  which 
are  grammatically  possible  [cf.  Lowe,  p.  88).  Or,  here  again  the 
absence  of  the  article  may  be  laid  to  the  charge  of  the  Massoretes. 
Cf.  the  parallel  cases:  Ezek.  36:38  nb'iJ^T  "(Xbra  D^-OJliJIX'SS ; 
Ps.  71: 1  ^jri^yi^J  "NSn  ;  and  in  Zech.  1:7  'rXi-''2b  .  In  the  case  of 
"lisr»3  (10:7)  parallels  are  found  (cf.  Kautzsch-Gesenius,  Oramm., 
§126,  3,  d)  in  Job  16:14  "lin^S  for  linaS ,  31:18  nS3 ,  38:8 
"I3j3  ,  and  Ps.  17:12  H^'^SS  .  Furthermore,  the  article  is  regu- 
larly wanting  when  the  compared  subject  is  already  more  nearly 
defined  by  an  attribute,  e.  fj.,  Isa.  16:2;  11:19;  29:5;  Jer.  2:30; 
Prov.  27 : 8 ;  Job  30 :  14.  1^::nn  ^r  ( 1 1 : 2  )  is  a  still  more  doubtful 
instance  as  the  necessity  of  the  article  depends  upon  the  nature  of 
"I^JlSil  whether  passive  participle  or  substantive.  In  case  it  is  a 
participle  the  omission  of  the  article  before  "ly  is  not  exceptional, 
as  it  expresses  the  attribute  of  1""'.  Kautzsch  [Gramm.,  §126, 
5,  Anm.  1,  a)  explains  the  absence  of  the  article  here  and  that 
of  the  following  example  advanced  by  Eckardt,  "i'J3i<in  ^^113 
(14:10),  as  regular.  The  form  D'oJlp'bS  (14:5)  has  a  parallel 
in  Isa.  28:8.  D'lrT'B  (14:5),  which  Eckardt  declares  is  "ganz 
abnorm"  without  the  article,  falls  easily  under  the  rule  given  by 
Kautzsch-Gesenius  [Grnmin.,  §126,  5.  Anm.  1,  a),  viz.,  that  the 
omission  of  the  article  may  depend  upon  a  regard  for  hiafiis 
before  i<,  1,  Ti ,  e.  g.,  in  Zech.  4:7  blian  ^n  for  bilSn  IHri 
(vocative);  Ps.  104:18  Q-ninSn  0"^^  [rf'l  Sam.  16:23";  Lev. 
24:10;  Ezek.  34:12;  Hag.  1:4;"  Ps.  143:10;  Ezek.  10:9  and  Jer. 
22:26).     One    other   case    remains   to  be  explained,    riiriri'JJnb 


THE  PROPHECIES  OF  ZECHARIAH  59 

"■^  T^b'^b  (1-4:16,  17).  But  here  again  the  omission  of  the  article 
may  be  set  to  the  account  of  the  Massoretic  punctuation;  or,  if 
this  be  rejected,  an  exact  parallel  is  found  in  Ps.  21:1.  From  an 
individual  study  of  these  words,  therefore,  it  is  evident  that  Zech. 
9-14  is  not  distinguished  by  a  conspicuous  absence  of  the  article, 
as  Eckardt  claims,  and  consequently  that  these  prophecies  are  not 
necessarily  of  late  origin. 

7.  Another  characteristic  of  late  Hebrew  is  the  setting  forth 
of  the  finite  verb  by  means  of  the  Infinitive  Absolute;  e.  g.,  ^HBDl 
T2tl'\  (12:10).  But  the  Inf.  Abs.  is  employed  in  setting  forth  a 
finite  verb  even  more  strikingly  in  Zech.  1-8  and  Haggai;  e.  g., 
mbni  ....  "rrinyn  (Zech.  3:4);   -iSC'l  nn-^^-'S   (Zech.  7:5); 

■ffliab  ....  inyj . . .  bi35<  . . .  5<ar;'i  . .  dto'it  (Hag.  i:6,  with 

four  Inf.  Abs.).  For  examples  of  the  same  use  of  the  Inf.  Abs. 
in  other  pre-Grecian  literature,  cf.  Kautzsch-Gesenius,  Gramm., 
§113,  4,  a. 

8.  Lastly,  as  another  proof  of  the  Grecian  origin  of  Zech. 
9-14,  Eckardt  urges  the  clumsy  diction  and  weary  rejjetition  of 
these  prophecies,  especially  chs.  12;  13:1-6;  14;  e.  g.,  H— "iiJ'''l 
n-Tinn  (12:6;  14:10);  1±i  (11  times),  nnD"a::j  (9  times),  and 
Dfl^'a:;  (5  times)  in  12:12-14,  etc.  But  the  unusual  idiom  con- 
cerning Jerusalem,  that  "she  shall  dwell  in  her  own  place,"  is  not 
peculiarly  characteristic  of  9-14,  for  a  corresponding  one  occurs 
in  Zech.  H:12  concerning  the  Branch,  f'Z^''  VrinDT^!!  "and  he 
shall  grow  up  out  of  his  own  place."'  On  the  other  hand,  the 
constant  repetition  of  words  is  likewise  a  conspicuous  trait  of 
Zech.  1-8;  e.  g.,  TO  (4  times  in  1:17),  nST  (5  times  in  5:5-8), 
-nj  (3  times  in  8:12),  Dili  (4  times  in  8:19).  (f.  also  the  lan- 
guage of  6:13;  8:14,15.  From  this  it  clearly  follows  that  chs. 
9-14  are  not  necessarily  later  than  chs.  1-8.  Neither  can  it  be 
argued  that  the  word  NIB"^  (9:1;  12:1)  is  necessarily  very  late; 
for  already  in  Jeremiah's  time  it  was  sufficiently  familiar  to  be 
used  in  a  double  sense  [cf.  Jer.  23:33-40).  In  conclusion,  there- 
fore, we  are  forced  to  remark  that  on  grounds  of  the  language 
alone  of  Zech.  9-14  we  are  unable  to  decide  that  our  author  wrote 
"nur  in  der  griechischen  Zeit";  but.  on  the  contrary,  that  he 
wrote  before  the  Grecian  times. 


60  THE  PROPHECIES  OP  ZECHARIAH 

II.  The  historical  data  alleged  in  favor  of  a  Graeco-Macca- 
beaii  date. — There  are  confessedly  several  passages  in  Zech.  9-14 
which  point  in  the  direction  of  Maccabean  times.  Wellhausen 
quotes  a  remark  of  Grotius  in  which  he  concedes  that  if  he  were 
compelled  to  dissent  from  the  traditional  view  and  determined  the 
date  of  Zech.  9-14  by  the  clear  references  to  the  facts  of  history, 
these  prophecies  would  have  to  be  assigned  to  a  period  not  earlier 
than  the  time  of  the  Maccabees.  The  principal  and  most  decisive 
passages  which  favor  a  late  date  are: 

1.  Zech.  14:9,  ^^And  the  Lord  shall  be  kiiuj  over  all  the 
earth;  in  that  day  shall  the  Lord  be  one  and  his  name  one. 
This  passage,  according  to  Stade  {ZATW.,  1880-1,  p.  169)  not 
only  pictures  the  congregation  in  Deutero-Zechariah's  time  as  a 
theocracy  with  Jerusalem  as  the  centre;  but  contains  a  polemic 
against  the  conditions  in  Greek  times  when  all  gods  were  con- 
ceived of  as  only  different  representations  of  one  and  the  same 
God.  It  betrays  also,  he  thinks,  a  repetition  concerning  Jehovah 
and  his  being  which  was  alone  then  possible.  To  Jeremiah  the 
gods  of  foreign  peoples  were  the  enemies  of  God's  people;  to 
Deutero-Isaiah,  as  no  gods;  but  to  Deutero-Zechariah  the  heathen 
all  worship  the  true  God,  but  only  under  different  names — hence 
Hellenic;  and  accordingly  opposed  to  Mai.  1:11,  which  pictures 
the  Jews  as  not  yet  having  learned  to  respect  heathen  gods. 
8uch  is  Stade's  interpretation  of  14:9.  But,  on  the  contrary,  the 
post-exilic  congregation  was  as  truly  a  theocracy  after  the  return 
from  exile  as  in  the  period  subsequent  to  Alexander's  conquest. 
And  the  fact  that  God  alone  was  ruler  of  his  people  was,  as  Stade 
really  admits,  the  foundation  thought  of  post-exilic  Judaism. 
Indeed  it  was  the  basis  of  the  Mosaic  religion  from  the  earliest 
time,  as  Griltzmacher  (p.  34)  suggests;  however,  not  in  the  sense 
that  it  was  after  the  exile.  Then  Israel  knew  no  king  but  God. 
Zerubbabel  was  but  a  governor  f~3  of  Judah  (Hag.  1:14;  2:2, 
21);  and  never  until  the  time  of  Aristobulus  I.  (105  B.  C.)  did 
any  ruler  ever  venture  to  assume  the  title  of  king.  The  Jewish 
colony  after  the  Restoration  were  more  of  a  religious  sect  than  a 
political  organization.  Zechnriah  often  pictures  the  close  relation 
of  Jehovah  to  his  people  (2:14-16;  8:3,  23),  and  our  prophet 
also  describes  similar  conditions.      The  "yearning  for  a   fuller 


THE  PROPHECIES  OF  ZECHARIAH  61 

theocracy,"  which  Cheyne  (^Bampton  Lectures,  p.  120)  discovers 
ill  Zech.  9-14,  is  thoroughly  consistent  with  the  yearning  of  a 
struggling  congregation  in  a  land  of  forsaken  idols  shortlj'  after 
the  return  from  exile.  The  passage  indeed  does  contain  ''an 
unusually  clear  and  decided  expression  of  Jewish  monotheism," 
as  Wellhausen  (p.  195)  expresses  it,  but  the  idea  of  monotheism 
was  by  no  means  a  new  idea  in  Grecian  times.  Already  the  decree 
of  Cyrus  was  given  in  the  name  of  "Jehovah,  God  of  heaven" 
(Ezr.  1:1-4);  not  that  Cyrus  worshiped  Jehovah  under  the 
Jewish  name,  but  that  the  same  God  of  heaven  was  at  that  time 
known  by  different  names.  Later,  Jehovah  is  spoken  of  as  "the 
Lord  of  all  the  earth"  (Zech.  6:5).  And  still  later  a  prophet 
declares  that  in  all  nations  the  Jews  are  offering  acceptable 
incense  to  God,  but  not  so  in  Jerusalem.  This  is  the  meaning  of 
Mai.  1:11;  and  consequently  is  in  no  sense  polemicised  by  our 
author.  Stade's  view  is  therefore  incorrect,  and  the  force  of  his 
whole  argument  in  favor  of  the  Greek  origin  of  this  passage  is 
materially  weakened.  Kuiper  (pp.  110,  132)  and  Staerk  (pp. 
98,  99)  decline  to  follow  Stade  in  this  instance,  declaring  with 
Grlitzmacher  (pp.  34,  35)  that  the  same  fundamental  thought  lies 
at  the  basis  of  both  Mai.  1:11  and  Zech.  14:9.  Further,  they  see 
no  evidence  whatever  in  Zech.  14:9  of  a  Greek  date  for  these 
prophecies. 

2.  Zech.  12:2  b.     Qbis^T-by  nirssn  n^n-*  rn^in^-by  c:;i, 

which,  interpreted  by  Stade,  Kuenen,  Wellhausen,  Rubinkam  and 
others,  means,  "And  Judah  also  (forced  by  the  enemy)  shall  be 
in  the  siege  against  Jerusalem."  To  Stade  this  is  a  proof  that  the 
children  of  the  Diaspora  had  served  as  soldiers.  To  Wellhausen 
it  is  a  description  of  the  hostile  relations  which  actually  existed 
between  the  city  and  the  country  in  the  beginning  of  the  Macca- 
bean  uprising.  To  another,  a  parallel  passage  is  found  in  the 
book  of  Enoch  (ch.  90:16);  viz.,  "All  the  eagles  and  vultures 
and  ravens  and  kites  (/.  e.,  Gentiles)  assembled  together  and 
brought  with  them  all  the  sheep  of  the  field  (/.  r.,  the  apostate 
Jews  of  Judea ) ,  and  they  all  came  together  and  helped  each  other 
to  break  that  horn  of  the  ram  (Judas  Maccabeus)."  The  validity 
of  all  these  claims,  however,  depends  upon  the  exegesis  of  Zech. 
12:2ft;  whether  or  not  Judah  is  really  forced  to  engage  in  actual 


62  THE    PROPHECIES    OF    ZECHAKIAH 

conflict  with  the  enemy  against  Jerusalem.  It  is  obvious  at  once 
from  the  present  text,  that  in  order  to  get  a  subject  for  T't'^il''  the 
by  before  rn^H"'  is  to  be  cancelled  (with  Targum,  Kuenen,  Stade, 
Wellhausen,  Geiger,  Marti,  Rubinkam  and  others).  The  passage 
then  translated  reads,  "And  Judah  also  shall  take  part  in  the 
siege  against  Jerusalem " ;  but  this  is  ambiguous,  being  capable 
of  the  interpretation  above  mentioned,  viz.,  that  Judah  shall  fight 
against  Jerusalem,  but  likewise  that  Judah  shall  be  besieged. 
The  latter  we  take  to  be  the  true  meaning  of  the  passage  and 
for  these  reasons:    (a)  The  verb  iTH  in  connection  with  "liSBl 

^         J  T    T  ,  T    - 

implies  the  passive  as  in  Ezek.  4:3,  "lili^3  ntT'n'l ,  "and  she 
(Jerusalem)  shall  be  besieged."  Thus  in  Zech.  12:2  6,  as  one 
nation  might  besiege  Jerusalem  (a  city),  so  all  nations,  coming 
up,  are  practically  going  to  besiege  Judah.      (6)  The  LXX.  has 

(Cat  iv  Trj  'lovSaia  tcrrai  Trtpioyij  erri  'lepovo-aXr;^,  which  makes  Judall  the 

field  of  battle,  and  nowhere  hints  that  Judah  is  opposed  to  Jeru- 
salem.     The   Beth   essentia'   before  '^yi'Z  indicates   that   in   the 

T 

mind  of  the  translator  the  siege  was  to  take  place  in  Judah,  i.  e., 
that  the  conflict  was  not  so  much  a  siege  as  an  open  battle  {cf. 
Lowe,  p.  107).  The  Koptic  version  makes  this  interpretation 
still  more  certain  by  inserting  a  koX  before  io-rai  {cf.  Schulte, 
Quartalschr.,  1895).  (c)  The  context  favors  this  interpretation. 
Judah  is  described  (12:5,6)  as  placing  confidence  in  Jerusalem 
and  then  as  becoming  victorious  over  the  nations,  without  any- 
where hinting  that  Judah  has  changed  sides  or  betrayed  the 
enemy.  In  12:7  also  the  prophet  makes  the  interests  of  Judah 
and  Jerusalem  one.  This  is  so  evident,  that  in  order  to  accept  of 
the  hypothesis  that  Judah  fights  against  Jerusalem,  Wellhausen 
(pp.  188  s(j'.)  is  forced  to  throw  out  this  verse  as  a  later  interpo- 
lation. He  also  changes  bHlTC  in  11:14  to  Obo;^"!^  in  order  that 
the  text  may  read,  "break  the  brotherhood  between  Judah  and 
Jerusalem."  Kuiper's  emendations  T^^''  for  tTil^ ,  etc.,  are  quite 
as  arbitrary  and  unnecessary.  Hence  as  a  matter  of  fact  the  con- 
text does  not  allow  of  our  thinking  that  Judah  fights  against 
Jerusalem,  (d)  Further,  the  parallel  passage  in  Zech.  14:14 
(which  Wellhausen  needlessly  transposes  to  ch.  12)  confirms  our 
interpretation  of  12:2  b.  There  the  verb  Dra  with  '2  occurs 
before  the  proper  name  Jerusalem.     This  construction  Drib  with 


THE  PROPHECIES  OF  ZBCHARIAH  63 

3  before  the  name  of  a  city,  usually  signifies  "at,"  not  "against." 
if  the  author  had  wished  to  express  the  thought  that  Judah  will 
fight  a(jainst  Jerusalem,  he  would  have  said  Db"£^T^"by  Dn5n 
instead  of  Db'JJilT'n  DH^ri  (c/.  Isa.  7:1;  2  Kgs.  12:'"l8;  19:8;  Jer. 
34:22;  37:8).  On  the  exegesis  of  Zech.  12:2  ?>,  cf.  Orelli  (pp. 
347,  359). 

With  this  interpretation  of  Zech.  12:2  b  the  alleged  parallel  in 
Enoch  90:16  falls  away.  Moreover,  in  any  case,  the  language  is 
too  obscure  and  its  own  interpretation  is  too  uncertain.  At  best 
it  is  a  mere  coincidence  and  consequently  proves  nothing.  The 
commonest  traits  of  Enoch  are  entirely  wanting  in  Zech.  12:2sg.; 
e.  g.,  there  is  no  mention  of  the  Chasids  or  Asideans,  who  existed 
as  a  party  for  some  time  before  the  Maccabean  uprising  {cf. 
Charles,  Book  of  Enoch,  pp.  249  sg.)  ;  and  who,  though  generally 
in  support  of  Judas,  yet  at  times  were  actually  antagonistic  to 
him  (1  Mace.  7:13).  The  Chasids  defended  the  law;  so  long, 
therefore,  as  Judas  and  the  Maccabean  family  endeavored  to 
re-establish  the  theocracy,  so  long  they  carried  with  them  the 
siipport  of  the  Chasids;  but  the  moment  they  laid  hands  on  the 
high -priesthood,  from  that  moment  began  the  alienation  of  the 
Chasids  which  afterwards  developed  into  a  deadly  hostility.  And 
further  also,  as  Wellhausen  observes  (p.  190),  though  hostile 
relations  actually  did  exist  between  the  city  and  the  country  in 
the  beginning  of  the  Maccabean  uprising,  "no  characteristic  of 
the  prophecy  under  discussion  in  reality  agrees  with  the  condi- 
tions of  that  time.  The  Maccabees  were  not  the  Jews  of  the  low 
land  and  they  did  not  join  themselves  with  the  heathen  out  of 
hatred  to  the  city  of  Jerusalem,  in  order  finally  to  fall  treacher- 
ously upon  their  companions  in  war.  There  is  not  the  slightest 
hint  in  our  passage  of  religious  persecution;  that  alone  decides, 
and  hence  the  most  important  sign  of  Maccabean  times  is  want- 
ing." Furthermore,  it  should  be  observed  that  the  apocalyptic 
restoration  of  Israel  as  a  nation  in  eh.  14,  is  quite  incongruous 
with  the  later  claims  of  the  individual  as  portrayed  in  the  liter- 
ature of  the  2d  century  B.  C,  e.  g.,  in  the  Book  of  Enoch,  {cf. 
Charles,  pp.  22,23). 

3.  Zech.  12:12-14,  the  hoitac  of  David  and  the  house  of 
Levi.      Stade   endeavors    to  show   from    this    passage    that    the 


64  THE    PROPHECIES    OF    ZECHARIAH 

coordinate  position  here  assigned  to  the  house  of  Levi  beside  the 
"house  of  David  is  not  only  a  clear  proof  that  Zeeh.  9-14  is  jiost- 
exilic,  but  also  Greek.  He  allows  that  the  house  of  Levi  before 
the  Grecian  times  was  already  of  far  greater  importance  than  the 
house  of  David  ;  but  he  claims  that  it  was  due  to  the  ancient 
traditions  in  favor  of  the  royal  house  that  kept  the  priesthood 
(especially  in  writings)  in  a  position  of  subordination.  But,  the 
following  observations  are  to  be  noted  in  connection  with  12:12— 
14 :  (a)  The  definition  of  the  author's  terms.  It  is  generally 
admitted  that  by  the  house  of  David  the  author  intends  the 
government  as  in  Ps.  122:5  [cf.  Wellhausen,  p.  191),  and  by  the 
house  of  Levi,  the  priesthood  [cf.  Mai.  2:4-7,  in  which  Levites 
are  priests).  The  prophet  accordingly  divides  the  community 
into  two  parts — the  political  and  the  ecclesiastical.  He  then 
subdivides  these.  The  house  of  Nathan  he  makes  a  further 
specialization  of  the  house  of  David  [cf.  2  Sam.  5:14),  and  the 
house  of  Shimei,  a  further  specialization  of  the  house  of  Levi 
[cf.  Num.  3:21).  By  this  division  the  prophet  embraces  the 
highest  and  the  lowest  in  both  the  civil  and  religious  orders  of 
society.  From  this  division  we  get  an  indication  of  the  author's 
aim  and  date,  (b)  The  author's  aim.  His  aim  evidently  is  to 
describe  how  the  entire  land  shall  be  affected  by  the  murder  in 
12:10.  Every  stratum  of  society  shall  mourn,  he  declares,  from 
the  highest  to  the  lowest  of  both  political  and  ecclesiastical  ranks 
of  the  community,  (c)  The  author's  date.  If  the  date  of  our 
prophet  can  be  determined  at  all  from  this  passage,  it  must 
depend  entirely  upon  the  division  he  makes  of  society,  as  the 
mere  mention  of  the  houses  of  David  and  Levi  can  not  decide. 
Such  a  division  would  have  been  absolutely  meaningless,  accord- 
ing to  our  opinion,  had  our  prophet  lived  and  written  after  the 
priesthood  had  acquired  temporal  power  in  the  Graeco-Maccabean 
age.  Indeed  such  a  division  of  society  would  lose  its  fullest 
import  if  the  author  had  lived  long  after  the  restoration  from 
exile.  For  (a)  after  Zerubbabel  the  house  of  David  fell  into 
comparative  obscurity  and  continued  to  lose  power  and  influence 
more  and  more,  until  in  the  time  of  the  Maccabees  it  was  entirely 
eclipsed,  [ft)  It  was  during  the  construction  of  the  temple,  as 
far  as  we  know,  that  the  hopes  of  Israel  centered  in  both  the 


THE    PROPHECIES    OF    ZECHARIAH  65 

royal  and  sacerdotal  houses  (c/.  Zech.  4:9;  6:12,  13).  Hence  in 
keeping  with  these  conditions  our  prophet  places  them  side  by 
side,  giving  precedence  to  David  because  of  the  historic  and 
Messianic  prestige  of  the  house  of  David,  in  the  same  manner  in 
which  the  prophet  Haggai  always  places  the  name  Zerubbabel 
before  that  of  Joshua  (1:1,  12,  14;  2:4,  cf.  Ezr.  5:2).  (y)  More- 
over, the  hopes  expressed  in  the  context  practically  render  it 
impossible  to  make  these  prophecies  late:  e.  y.,  the  hope  con- 
tained in  12:8,  in  which  the  feeble  of  Jerusalem  are  described  as 
becoming  in  that  day  as  David,  etc.  Such  a  hope  is  absolutely 
inexplicable  in  Grecian  times,  for  the  house  of  David  had  at  that 
time  lost  too  much  of  its  power  and  glory  to  inspire  a  prophet 
with  such  a  comparison.  Again,  the  promise  contained  in  9:9 
bears  upon  our  passage.  It  is  there  clearly  indicated  that  the 
prophet  looked  for  a  Davidic  Messiah  to  come.  The  great 
leaders  of  the  Maccabees,  however,  were  not  of  the  house  of 
David  but  of  the  tribe  of  Levi  (c/.  Lowe,  p.  Ill)  :  accordingly 
we  must  conclude  that  when  the  prophet  wrote,  the  house  of 
David  was  still  in  possession  of  considerable  prestige  and  political 
power.  Kuenen  sees  no  proof  of  Greek  origin  in  this  passage. 
4.  Zecli.  10:10,  11,  Assyria  and  Eijypt.  (This  passage, 
singularly  enough,  is  also  one  of  the  strongest  proofs  in  support 
of  the  pre-exilic  hypothesis).  Stade  maintains  (p.  291),  "that, 
by  Egypt  the  kingdom  of  the  Ptolemies  is  to  be  understood  is 
self-evident.  And  just  as  sure,  though  vigorously  disputed,  is  it 
that  Assyria  must  be  taken  to  mean  Syria,  which  it  also  means  in 
Isa.  27: 12, 13  and  Ps.  83:9."  Consequently  he  concludes  (p.  306), 
that  Deutero-Zechariah  lived  after  306  B.C. — the  date  of  the  first 
Ptolemy  {cf.  Wellhausen,  p.  183).  Rubinkam  quotes  Herodotus 
(7:63)  who  says  concerning  Syria,  "the  people  whom  the  Greeks 
call  Syrians  are  called  Assyrians  by  the  barbarians."  Guthe 
[Lectures  on  O.  T.  Iidrod.,  MS.)  maintains  further  that  Assyria 
and  Egypt  are  here  described  by  Deutero-Zechariah  not  as  a  unit, 
as  they  were  under  Alexander,  but  as  independent  kingdoms  such 
as  they  were  after  the  division  under  the  Ptolemies  and  Seleucidae 
in  306  B.C.  {cf.  Mic.  5:4,  5).  But  there  are  serious  objections 
to  this  late  date,  (o)  The  alleged  parallel  passages  (Isa.  27:12, 
13,  Ps.  83:9;  Mic.  5:4,  5)  are  most  probably  earlier  than  306  B.C. 


66  THE  PROPHECIES  OF  ZECHARIAH 

as  allowed  by  the  most  liberal  of  modern  scholars.  The  popular 
date,  e.  g.,  assigned  to  Isa.  27  is  the  early  post-exilic  period 
(Driver,  Dillmann,  Ewald,  Kuenen,  Oort,  Delitzsch,  and  others); 
and  the  Greek  origin  of  Mic.  5:4,  5  and  Ps.  83  is  equally 
improbable  [cf.  Delitzsch,  Commentary  on  Psalms).  This  argu- 
ment, therefore,  viewed  from  a  critical  point  of  view  rests  upon  an 
uncertainty,  (b)  Exegetically  also,  Stade's  conclusion  is  doubt- 
ful. For  granted  that  these  passages  from  Isaiah,  Micah,  and  Ps. 
83  covfld  be  proven  to  be  of  Greek  origin,  it  would  still  remain  to 
be  shown  that  in  the  use  of  the  names  Assyria  and  Egypt  they 
furnish  an  analogy  to  our  passage  in  hand.  Grlitzmacher  denies 
that  ITOS  in  the  O.  T.  ever  means  Syria  (but  cf.  Noldeke, 
Zeitschr.fur  Assyriologie,  I.,  pp.  2(38-273) ;  and  Kuiper  (p.  134), 
though  he  admits  that  Egypt  might  mean  the  Ptolemies,  holds 
that  it  is  doubtful  whether  ^^lUX  means  the  Seleucidae.  He, 
therefore,  finally  concludes  that  Assyria  means  here  the  Persian 
monarchy,  and  that  Assyria  and  Egypt  together  refer  to  the 
different  parts  of  the  Persian  kingdom.  Kuenen  maintains 
(p.  413)  that  Stade's  "claim  is  entirely  unproven."  According 
to  our  opinion,  there  is  positive  biblical  proof  for  interpreting 
Assyria  to  mean  Persia.  For  example  in  Ezr.  6:22  the  King  of 
Persia  is  unmistakably  called  the  "King  of  Assyria."  This 
passage,  we  maintain,  is  a  legitimate  parallel  to  Zech.  10:10,  11, 
and  of  itself  is  sufficient  to  justify  an  interpretation  of  our 
passage  in  keeping  with  Persian  times.  But  there  are  also 
reasons  for  thinking  that  the  ancient  names  Assyria  and  Baby- 
lonia lingered  in  the  memories  of  exilic  and  post-exilic  writers 
(c/.  Kuiper  p.  134),  and  that  they  were  used  by  them  to  express 
new  conditions.  Thus  Nebuchadnezzar,  King  of  Babylon,  is 
called  in  2  Kgs.  23:29  "King  of  Assyria;"  Cyrus,  King  of 
Persia  is  spoken  of  in  Ezr.  5:13  as  "King  of  Babylon,"  so  also 
Artaxerxes,  King  of  Persia  is  called  in  Neh.  13:6  "King  of 
Babylon."  In  a  similar  manner  the  term  "Assyrians"  is  employed 
where  "Babylonians"  is  intended  (c/.  Jer.  2:18;  Lam.  5:6).  A 
like  use  of  ancient  names  for  modern  conditions  is  pointed  out 
by  McCurdy  [History,  Prophevy  and  the  Monuments,  I.,  p. 
158,  1894),  in  the  case  of  "Canaan"  —  the  ancient  name  of 
Palestine  —  which  long  after  the  Hebrews  occupied  the  land  still 


THE    PROPHECIES    OF    ZECHAKIAH  67 

clung  to  it  and  was  used  instead  of  "land  of  Israel"  (c/.  1  Sam. 
13:19,2Kgs.  ():23,  Isa.  19:24).  In  explanation  of  this  McCurdy 
remarks,  '"the  ancient  appellation  was  not  excluded,  inasmuch  as 
the  Bible  interests  itself  primarily  not  in  places,  but  in  their 
inhabitants."  This  we  claim  holds  true  in  the  case  of  our 
prophecy,  especially  10:11.  (c)  Again,  the  context  is  opposed 
to  Stade's  interpretation.  In  10:10  Egypt  and  Assyria  are 
spoken  of  as  the  lands  to  which  the  people  of  Ephraim  had  been 
banished  and  from  which  they  were  to  be  brought  back  to  Gilead 
and  Lebanon  [cf.  Zech.  8:7,  where  it  is  said  they  shall  be 
brought  back  from  the  east  country  and  the  west  country,  as  in 
Isa.  43:5,  6;  49:12;  cf.  also  Hos.  7:16;  8:13;  9:3,  6;  11:5,  11, 
which  predict  their  places  of  banishment).  The  allusion  in 
Zech.  10:10,  therefore,  is  naturally  to  ancient  Egypt  and  ancient 
Assyria.  If  so,  it  is  unreasonable  to  suppose  that  the  prophet 
in  the  next  verse  under  the  same  terminology  refers  to  the 
Seleucidae  and  the  Ptolemies.  And  the  fact  that  the  prophet 
here  mentions  the  "pride"  of  Assyria  and  the  "scepter"  of 
Egypt  does  not  necessarily  place  him  after  306  B.C.,  when  these 
countries  were  no  longer  a  unit  under  Alexander  the  Great ;  for, 
in  9:6  our  prophet  speaks  also  of  the  "pride"  of  Philistia,  and 
as  a  matter  of  history  the  "scepter"  of  Egypt  was  actually  taken 
away  by  Darius  in  517  B.C.  On  the  other  hand,  the  prominence 
with  which  Egypt  is  referred  to  in  14:19  points  rather  to  Persian 
than  Greek  times ;  for  then  Egypt  in  consequence  of  her 
perpetual  efforts  to  throw  off  the  Persian  yoke,  was  naturally 
brought  under  the  observation  of  the  Jews  in  Palestine  who 
repeatedly  beheld  the  Persian  armies  passing  on  their  way  to  the 
valley  of  the  Nile.  Hence  we  maintain  that  Zech.  10:10,  11  is 
not  a  witness  to  the  Graeco-Maccabean  origin  of  these  prophecies. 
5.  Zech.  9:13,  the  Sons  of  Greece.  ''For  I  have  bent 
Judah  for  vie.  I  have  jiUed  the  bow  with  Ephraim  :  and  I  will 
stir  iijt  ihij  sons,  ()  Zion,  against  thij  sons,  0  Greece,  and  will 
make  tlice  as  the  sirord  of  a  wii/hti/  wan."  This  is  the  chief  and 
all-impoi'tant  passage  in  support  of  the  post-Zecharian  hypothesis. 
More  emphasis  is  placed  upon  this  passage  than  upon  all  others 
together.  Kuiper,  e. ;/.,  (p.  160)  in  summing  up  throws  the  whole 
weicrht  of  Ills  artrument  in  favor  of  a  Greek  date  on  this  verse 


68  THE  PROPHECIES  OF  ZECHARIAH 

Wellhausen  (p.  183)  makes  it  decide  the  date  of  these  prophecies, 
while  Stade  (II,  p.  275)  declares  that  the  announcement  of  the 
"|V  ''3S  is  alone  sufficient  to  prove  that  these  prophecies  are  after 
333  B.  C.  It  is.  in  short,  claimed  that  we  are  no  longer  in  the 
Assyrian,  nor  the  Chaldean,  nor  indeed  the  Persian  times,  but  in 
the  Grecian.  Two  things  are  especially  emphasized  in  connection 
with  this  important  passage:  (a)  that  the  Sons  of  Javan  are  the 
world-power  of  Deutero-Zechariah's  day,  /.  <\,  the  Gr£eco-Macca- 
bean  world-power;  and  (6)  that  they  are  the  enemies  of  Zion. 
But  in  opposition  to  these  claims  it  should  be  observed  (n)  that 
the  Sons  of  Javan  are  but  one  of  several  world-powers  within  the 
range  of  our  prophet's  horizon  (c/.  9:1-7,  Syria,  Phoenicia,  Phil- 
istia;  12:2sg.,  14:2sg.,  all  nations,  and  10:10,  11  Assyria  and 
Egypt;  cf.  also  Hag.  2: 22,  23) .  (6)  That  the  Greeks  under  Alex- 
ander were  not  "the  enemies  of  Zion,"  and  did  not  fight  against 
the  Jews  but  against  the  Persians. 

In  discussing  this  passage,  it  is  useless  to  question  the  gen- 
uineness of  Zech.  9,  13,  as  Kuenen  does  [Einleit.  §81,  n  6),  or 
call  it  a  gloss  of  Maccabean  times,  as  Kirkpatrick  {Doc.  of  Proph- 
ets, pp.  472-3) ;  for  the  mention  of  the  Sons  of  Greece  is  so  char- 
acteristic of  the  whole  section  in  which  it  stands  and  is  so  inter- 
woven with  the  very  texture  of  the  entire  ninth  chapter  that  to 
eliminate  it  destroys  the  prophet's  message  concerning  the  ''king 
of  Zion"  (9:9).  The  defeat  of  Javan  inaugurates  the  Messianic 
age.  Hence  we  propose  to  treat  9:13  as  an  integral  portion  of 
the  entire  context.  We  are  unable,  however,  to  agree  with  those 
who  advocate  its  Grseco-Maccabean  origin.  The  following  reasons 
have  led  us,  after  considerable  study,  to  the  conclusion  that  it  is 
Persian,  (a)  The  prophecy,  according  to  our  opinion,  is  far  too 
indefinite  to  have  been  uttered  just  after  the  invasion  of  Alexander 
the  Great  (vs.  Kuiper).  No  such  vague  description,  or  allusion 
to  the  march  of  Alexander  can  be  found  elsewhere,  so  far  as  we 
are  aware,  in  all  literature.  {It)  The  passage  does  not  describe  a 
victory  for  the  Sons  of  Javan,  but  rather  a  defeat.  This  fact  in  itself 
is  enough  to  render  Kuiper's  hypothesis  improbable,  (c)  Stade 's 
interpretation  rests  on  the  hypothesis  that  9 : 1-7  describes  the 
expedition  of  Soleucis ;  but,  as  Kuiper  remarks  in  answer  to  Rubin- 
kam,  any  ow  of  n  hnlf-dozcn  invasions  of  Palestine  from  north  to 


THE  PROPHECIES  OF  ZECHAKIAH  69 

south  would  satisfy  the  description  quite  as  well;  e,  g.,  that  of 
Shalmaneser  II,  or  of  Nebuchadnezzar  {cf.  Grutzmacher,  pp. 
37-40).  (J)  Zech.  9:11,  12  contains  an  appeal  to  those  still  in 
exile  to  return,  which,  according  to  our  opinion,  would  have  been 
quite  meaningless  after  the  conquest  of  Alexander;  and  indeed 
after  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  not  so  appropriate  as  earlier,  (p)  In 
short,  9: 13-17  as  a  whole  is  not  a  picture  of  actual  war,  but  rather 
an  apocalyptic  vision  of  the  struggle  of  Israel  with  the  world- 
power  of  the  West, —  hence  its  indefinite  character  and  its  figura- 
tive language. 

It  is  objected,  however,  that  in  Zechariah's  days  the  Greeks 
were  still  unimportant  and  had  not  as  yet  assumed  the  r6le  of  a 
world-power  (Driver).  This  statement  is  not  supported,  however, 
by  all  the  facts  of  Scripture  and  history.  In  the  literature  of  the 
Old  Testament,  for  example,  Javan  appears  as  a  nation  of  consid- 
erable importance  before  the  beginning  of  the  5th  century  B.  C. 
In  Gen.  10:2  (assigned  to  P*',  which,  according  to  Dillmann, 
Kueneu,  Budde,  Wellhausen,  Cornill,  Kautzsch,  and  others,  was 
written  before  500  B.  C.)  Javan  occurs  as  one  of  the  seven  sons 
of  Japheth.  In  Isa.  66:19  (exilic,  according  to  Driver,  Dillmann, 
Doederlein,  Eichhorn,  Rosenmuller,  deWette,  Gesenius,  Hitzig, 
Ewald,  and  Kuenen;  or,  shortly  after  the  Restoration  —  Konig, 
Ryssel,  and  Bleek),  Javan  is  mentioned  as  one  of  the  remote 
peoples  who  had  not  heard  of  the  fame  or  seen  the  glory  of  the 
Jewish  Jehovah.  In  Ezek.  27:13  (confessedly  exilic)  Javan  is 
represented  as  in  commercial  relations  with  Phoenicia.  In  Joel 
4:()  (by  many  pre-exilic,  but  doubtful),  Javan  is  a  market  where 
the  Phoenicians  and  Philistines  found  sale  for  Jewish  slaves. 
Further,  in  Gen.  10: 1-5  "  the  isles,"  or  coast  lands  are  mentioned 
as  among  the  Sons  of  Javan.  In  Ezek.  39:6  fire  is  sent  "on 
Magog  and  them  that  dwell  securely  in  the  isles."  In  Zeph.  2: 11, 
"even  all  the  isles  of  the  nations"  are  represented  as  worshiping 
Jehovah.  In  Isa.  59:18  the  Lord  is  going  to  pour  out  his  fury 
upon  his  adversaries,  yea  "to  the  islands  he  will  repay  recom- 
pense." The  cause  is  not  stated,  but  for  some  reason  Jehovah  is 
about  to  visit  the  isles  with  fury.  From  these  passages  it  is  to 
be  observed,  (a)  that  Javan  is  conceived  of  as  a  distant  but  impor- 
tant   nation    before   the   beginning   of   the    5th    century    B.   C; 


70  THE  PROPHECIES  OF  ZECHARIAH 

(6)  that  our  prophet  in  Zech.  9:13  is  moving  within  the  sphere 
of  acknowledged  earlier  prophecies;  and  (c)  that  he  reechoes  the 
spirit  of  the  former  prophets. 

Turning  to  history  we  obtain  more  light.  {Cf.  Noldeke,  Aiif- 
sdtze  zur  persischcn  Geschichte,  1887,  translated  in  Enciiclopcvdia 
Brltannica,  IX.  ed.,  article  "Persia:"  and  Duncker,  Geschichte 
lies  Altertums).  Darius  Hystaspes  was  elevated  to  the  throne  of 
Persia  in  521  B.C.,  and  ruled  36  years  (521-486).  His  seat  was 
not  firm  at  first  (Herodotus  3:127).  From  the  Behistun  inscrip- 
tion we  learn  that  at  his  accession  the  empire  was  in  an  unsettled 
condition.  One  province  after  another  made  insurrection  against 
the  central  government.  Noldeke  records  twelve  different  revolts 
which  happened  in  the  first  three  years  (521-519)  of  Darius' 
reign,  principally  in  the  north  and  east.  The  west  alone  remained 
quiet,  but  it  was  partly  in  the  hands  of  governors  of  doubtful  loy- 
alty. In  518,  however,  Darius  was  compelled  to  move  westward 
at  the  head  of  the  royal  armies.  In  517  Aryandes,  governor  of 
Egypt,  was  removed  for  having  assumed  the  royal  privilege  of 
minting  money  (c/.  Wiedemann,  Gesch.,  p.  236).  But  the  king's 
visit  to  Egypt  was  cut  short  by  the  disturbances  of  the  Greeks,  who, 
like  the  Egyptians,  were  the  perpetual  haters  of  Persian  domina- 
tion. According  to  Ducnker  (IV.,  p.  491,  and  VI.,  p.  496),  in  the 
year  516  the  Greeks  of  the  Hellespont  and  Bosphorus  with  the 
island  of  Samos  were  made  to  submit  to  Persian  rule.  The  next 
year  (515)  Darius  led  an  expedition  against  the  Scythians  across 
the  Danube,  the  failure  of  which  encouraged  the  lonians  subse- 
quently to  revolt.  In  500  B.  C.  the  great  Ionian  revolt  took 
place.  In  499,  Sardis,  the  most  important  stronghold  for  Persia 
in  Asia  Minor,  was  burned  by  the  Athenians.  An  army  was  dis- 
patched by  Darius  to  restore  the  Persian  frontier.  In  493  the 
islands  of  the  J5gean  were  recovered,  but  the  Greeks  were  hard 
to  suppress.  The  next  three  years  were  spent  in  planning  an 
invasion  of  Greece.  Immense  preparations  were  made,  as  the 
undertaking  was  considered  prodigious.  Soldiers  were  drawn 
from  all  parts  of  the  empire,  but  to  no  purpose.  In  490  Mara- 
thon was  fought  and  Persia  was  conquered.  Tlint  defeat  marks 
a  turning  point  in  the  current  of  tlie  world's  history.  The  Sous  of 
Javan  on  the  plain  of  Marathon  met  the  largest  and  strongest  and 


THE  PROPHECIES  OF  ZECHARIAH  71 

best  organized  of  Oriental  monarchies  and  came  off  victorious. 
Persia  rallied,  but  never  really  recovered  from  the  shock.  Deci- 
mated but  not  vanquished,  preparations  were  begun  for  a  renewed 
attack  on  this  new  world-power.  But  as  the  army  was  about 
ready  to  start  on  a  second  campaign  into  Greece,  Egypt  revolted 
and  the  projected  invasion  was  necessarily  postponed.  Before 
Egypt  was  again  reduced  Darius  died  (486  B.  C).  Xerxes 
succeeded  to  the  throne  and  attempted  to  carry  out  his  father's 
project  to  reduce  Greece,  but  like  him  was  disappointed.  His 
defeat  at  Salamis  in  480  B.  C.  need  not  be  rehearsed,  nor  need 
we  sketch  the  history  of  Javan  further.  Enough  has  been  related 
to  show  that  already  in  the  reign  of  Darius  Hystaspes,  the  Sons 
of  Greece  were  a  world-power.  Not  that  Greece  was  ihe  world- 
power  of  Darius'  reign,  but  that  it  was  a  world-power  and  a  threat- 
ening world-power.  Zech.  9-14  does  not  demand  that  we  should 
think  of  Greece  as  the  onJij  world-power  of  the  prophet's  day. 
The  prophet  betrays  rather  a  feeling  of  insecurity  from  all  quar- 
ters, which  indicates  that  a  general  upheaval  was  taking  place. 
The  Sons  of  Javan  were  but  one  of  Israel's  enemies  in  the  prophet's 
day,  but  the  Sons  of  Javan,  at  the  same  time,  were  of  great  impor- 
tance, inasmuch  as  the  victory  over  them  carried  with  it  so  momen- 
tous Messianic  interests.  The  language  of  ch.  9  is  vague  and, 
in  our  judgment,  too  vague  and  too  indefinite  to  have  been  uttered 
after  Marathon  (490  B.  C),  or  even  after  the  burning  of  Sardis 
(500  B.  C);  for  in  that  case,  the  author  would  have  been  influ- 
enced more  by  Greece  and  less  by  the  movements  and  commotions 
of  the  nations.  Accordingly  we  are  inclined  to  believe  that  our 
prophet  most  probably  lived  in  the  period  before  the  revolt  of  the 
lonians  and  the  burning  of  Sardis  by  the  Athenians.  Or,  more 
definitely,  in  view  of  the  political  insecurity  which  these  prophe- 
cies reflect  throughout,  that  he  lived  in  the  time  when  Darius' 
armies  were  moving  westward  to  protect  Persian  interests  in 
Egypt  and  Asia  Minor,  i.  e.,  in  the  period  from  518  till  516  B.  C. 
How  admirably  these  years  suit  the  character  and  contents  of 
these  prophecies  will  be  manifest  from  what  follows.  Not  that 
all  the  events  of  Zech.  9-14  can  be  fitted  into  and  explained  by 
the  history  of  these  three  years,  for  this  is  impossible  on  any 
hypothesis,  whether  pre-exilic  or  post-Zecharian;  but,  what  to  us 


72  THE  PROPHECIES  OF  ZECHAEIAH 

is  far  more  important,  the  events  of  these  three  years  have  left 
an  unmistakable  impress  upon  these  confessedly  obscure  oracles, 
which  must  be  recognized.  We  make  no  attempt  to  square  all 
the  prophetical  statements  of  our  author  by  the  facts  of  history, 
nor  do  we  presume  to  interpret  any  given  passage  in  such  a  man- 
ner that  it  may  meet  the  requirements  of  the  greatest  event  of  its 
kind  in  all  history;  bu.t  on  the  contrary,  we  have  endeavored  to 
grasp  first  the  sj^irit  of  the  author's  oracles,  and  then  to  trace,  as 
far  as  possible,  their  source  and  inspiration  in  history.  We  have  in 
this  way  become  convinced  that  our  author  does  not  reflect  the  spirit 
of  his  alleged  contemporaries  in  pre-exilic  times :  nor,  on  the  other 
hand,  breathe  the  atmosphere  of  the  Jewish  theocracy  in  Graeco- 
Maccabean  times;  but  that  he  does  reflect,  on  the  contrary,  the 
last  three  years  before  the  dedication  of  the  temple  (518-516 
B.  C). 

Our  principal  reasons  for  thinking  that  these  prophecies  reflect 
the  events  of  this  period  are  these: 

1.  The  temple  was  still  in  process  of  construction.  This  is  seen 
(a)  in  ttie  Messianic  and  eschnioJociical  character  of  these  prophe- 
cies. In  no  period  was  the  Jewish  mind  more  aglow  with  Messianic 
hope  and  expectation  than  in  the  period  just  after  the  return  from 
exile  (c/.  Wellhausen,  p.  174),  but  especially  when  the  temple 
was  reaching  completion.  Then  the  hopes  of  the  theocracy  prac- 
tically knew  no  bound  (Zech.  6:12,  13).  Their  expectations 
became  ideal.  The  vision,  for  example,  of  all  nations  coming 
up  to  Jerusalem  to  keep  the  feast  of  tabernacles  (ch.  14)  is  in 
the  highest  degree  ideal,  and  was  most  probably  inspired  by  the 
hope  that  when  the  temple  should  be  completed  Zion  would 
become  the  center  of  the  world's  religious  life.  The  author 
makes  no  attempt  to  "  plunge  into  Jewish  ceremonial  legality  "'  {cf. 
Delitzsch,  Mess.  Proph.,  p.  223,)  "but  only  develops  a  thought 
already  expressed  in  the  old  prophetic  word  (Isa.  2 : 2  sg. ;  Mic. 
4:lsg),"  hence  the  objection  raised  by  Kautzsch  [Stud.  u.  Krit., 
p.  777,  1890;  Die  heil.  Schrift.,  etc..  p.  203)  and  Graetz  (JQB., 
p.  211,  1891),  that  this  vision  of  Zech.  14  must  be  later  than 
Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  as  not  until  then  did  the  precept  to  "dwell 
in  booths"  came  to  be  generally  observed  (Neh.  8:14-17)  is 
groundless,     (b)   In  the  fact  tliul  tlie  proplict  bases  his  cxiiorta- 


THE    PROPHECIES    OF    ZECHAZIAH  73 

lions  for  the  present  on  the  history  of  the  post  (11:1-3;  11:4-17; 
10:2  SQ.;  9:l-4s5.,-  14:20,21).  This  is  exceedingly  important, 
inasmuch  as  it  reveals  the  prophet's  method.  Haggai  and  Zech- 
ariah  employed  the  same  method  (Hag.  1:6,  9;  2:3;  Zech.  1:4-6; 
7:7,  12,  cf  Borchert,  Stud.  u.  Krit.,  II,  1895,  pp.  228,  247  sg.). 
Our  prophet  frequently  emphasizes  his  message  to  Israel  by  refer- 
ring to  their  experience  in  the  past.  And  here  again,  according 
to  our  opinion,  no  period  would  so  readily  suggest  this  method  of 
exhortation  or  warrant  its  use,  as  a  time  in  which  the  prophet  had 
before  him  the  actual  ruins  of  Israel's  former  splender.  (c)  In 
the  fact  that  the  prophet  makes  Israel's  chief  interests  center  in 
Jerusalem  (9:8-12;  12:2-11;  13:1;  14:2,8-17,21).  This  is 
also  the  case  in  Zech.  (1:12-17;  2:6,  8,  16;  8:8,  4,  8,  15,  22), 
and  no  period  could  more  naturally  have  caused  a  prophet  to 
think  and  speak  thus  than  when  the  colony  was  small  and  dwelt 
in  Jerusalem  and  the  near  vicinity.  But  further,  three  times  the 
prophet  assures  his  hearers  that  "Jerusalem  shall  again  be  inhab- 
ited in  her  place"  (12:6;  14:10,  11)  —  a  thought  which,  it  must 
be  admitted,  would  have  been  quite  superfluous  after  the  city  had 
been  rebuilt  and  surrounded  by  walls  (cf.  again,  Zech.  1:16,  17; 
2:8,  16;  8:4,  8).  (d)  In  the  fact  that  certain  allusions  are  best 
explainedin  these  times,  (a)  Zech.  9:9,  10;  14:9.  In  the  first  of 
these  passages  it  is  stated  that  the  dominion  of  the  Messiah  shall 
extend  "from  sea  to  sea  and  from  the  river  to  the  ends  of  the 
earth;"  and  in  the  second  that  "Jehovah  shall  be  king  over  the 
whole  earth."  Of  Alexander  the  Great  could  it  hardly  be  said  that 
his  dominion  should  reach  only  ■•  from  sea  to  sea,"  for  it  extended 
indefinitely  into  Europe,  Asia,  and  Africa.  Of  Xerxes  it  was  not 
the  case ;  nor  of  Cyrus,  for  he  had  no  power  in  Egypt ;  nor  even  of 
Darius  after  the  battle  Marathon,  for  his  dominion  was  then  crip- 
pled; but  of  Darius  in  the  period  between  518  and  516  the  descrip- 
tion is  exact,  for  then  his  dominion  did  extend  from  sea  to  sea 
and  from  the  river  unto  the  ends  of  the  earth,  and  he  was  king 
(as  far  as  the  Jews  of  Jerusalem  understood)  of  the  whole  earth. 
This  is  an  important  observation  because  these  thoughts  are  of 
such  paramount  consequence  to  the  prophet.  (/3)  9:1-8  is  a 
proof  of  the  prophet's  confidence  that  Jerusalem  would  not  be 
molested.     It  mattered  not  if  the  royal  armies  were  humbling 


74  THE    PROPHECIES    OF    ZECHARIAH 

Syria,  Phoenicia  and  Philistia  on  their  way  to  Egypt,  they  would 
not  harm  Jerusalem  for  she  was  a  loyal  Persian  city,  (y)  9:12 
reflects  the  hope  of  the  prophet  as  he  addresses  the  remaining 
Jews  in  Babylon  and  bids  them  return  to  the  stronghold, —  pris- 
oners of  hope,  nipnn  ^"I^Cyt.  (S)  9:  is  and  14:20  refer  to  the 
nSTw  ,  built  by  the  Jews  shortly  after  their  arrival  in  536  B.  C. 
(Ezr.  3:2).  («)  13:2-6  is  especially  appropriate  to  the  period 
of  temple-building,  when  the  people  saw  the  idols  of  their  fore- 
fathers prostrate  about  them  and  were  assured  by  the  prophet 
that  the  day  would  come  when  every  vestige  of  idolatry  and  false 
prophecy  would  disappear  out  of  the  land;  "the  mention  of  tera- 
phim  and  soothsayers  (10:2)  would  be,"  as  Kautzsch  [Die  heil. 
Schrift,  p.  204)  remarks,  "very  strange  in  Grecian  times." 
((;)  14 :  10  does  not  describe  the  "  gates  "  of  the  Jerusalem  of  Nehe- 
miah's  time,  e.g.,  the  "p/2^^S  "^T^  is  mentioned  in  Jer.  37:13; 
88:7  and  Zech.  14:10,  but'not  'in  Neh.  3;  and  the  D"3Sn  y^ , 
which  occurs  also  in  2  Kgs.,  14:13,  2  Chron.  26:9,  Jer.  31:38, 
was  a  gate  in  the  first  wall  of  Jerusalem,  according  to  Guthe 
{Zcifs.  deidsch.  Pal.  Vcrcws,  VIII,  p.  280.  {■>,)  14: 18  particular- 
izes Egypt,  but  this  is  explained  by  Darius'  prolonged  attempt  to 
win  the  loyalty  of  the  Egyptians  by  moderating  the  taxes  and 
ordering,  according  to  Polyaenus,  a  canal  to  be  built  between 
the  Nile  and  the  Ked  Sea.  All  these  passages  point  more  or  less 
definitely  to  the  period  just  before  the  completion  and  dedication 
of  the  temple  in  516  B.  C.  Even  chapter  11  finds  its  best 
historic  setting  in  these  years,  for,  as  we  have  shown,  the  author 
was  arguing  on  the  basis  of  the  past.*  And  we  further  main- 
tain that  our  author  more  truly  reflects  the  political  conditions 
of  these  years  (518-516),  than  the  prophet  Zechariah  does  the 
historical  events  of  the  years  521-518.  These  were  the  years 
when  Darius  with  the  royal  armies  was  putting  down  insurrec- 
tion after  insurrection  in  the  north  and  east ;  yet,  Zechariah  says 
in  chapter  1:11,  that  "all  the  earth  sitteth  still  and  is  at  rest,"— 
a  statement  which  was  only  relatively  true,  ('.  e.,  true  for  the  con- 
gregation in  Jerusalem.-j- 

*  According  to  Eichhom  (Einleit.  IV.,  p.  449),  "  chapters  11 : 1-13 : 6  have  no  contents  by 
which  we  can  determine  the  period  of  their  authorship," 

t  Kostors'  idea  (Thfolog.  TZ/rfs.,  1.,  189ri,  pp.  :)r>:i-84)  that  Zech.  1 :  11  and  Hag.  2:18  are  wit- 
uessos  BKainst  tlie  re.stiiration  of  Israel  under  ('yrus,  and  consequently,  that  the  first  return 


THE    PROPHECIES    OF    ZECHABIAH  75 

2.  Negatively  also,  there  are  proofs  that  Zech.  9-14  were 
delivered  before  516  B.  C,  e.  (j.,  (a)  the  entire  absence  of  any 
sort  of  allusion,  direct  or  indirect,  to  the  revolt  of  Javan  (500 
B.  C),  to  the  victories  of  Greece  over  Persia  (490-480),  to  Ezra 
and  Nehemiah,  to  the  Great  Synagogue,  to  Alexander  the  Great, 
to  the  influences  of  Greek  civilization  and  Greek  thought,  to  the 
growing  claims  of  the  individual  as  opposed  to  the  nation  {cf.  the 
Wisdom  of  Solomon),  make  it  improbable  that  our  author  lived 
after  these  events.  Again  [h]  the  absence  of  any  direct  rebuke 
of  glaring  sins  such  as  we  find  in  Mai.,  e.  y.,  the  offering  of  pol- 
luted bread  (Mai.  1:7),  profaning  the  table  of  the  Lord  (1:12), 
sacrificing  the  lame  and  the  sick  (1:13,  14),  causing  to  stumble 
at  the  law,  corrupting  the  covenant  of  Levi  (2:8),  dealing  treach- 
erously every  man  against  his  brother  (2:10,  11),  even  with  the 
wife  of  his  youth  (2:14),  the  putting  away  of  wives  (2:16),  prac- 
ticing sorcery,  committing  adultery  and  swearing  falsely  (3:5); 
or,  as  in  Nehemiah 's  time,  neglecting  the  Levitical  tithes  (Neh. 
13:10),  forsaking  the  house  of  the  Lord  (13:11),  treading  wine- 
presses and  bearing  burdens  on  the  Sabbath  (18:15,  16),  and 
marrying  wives  of  the  heathen  (13:23) — the  absence  of  all  allu- 
sion to  any  of  these  sins  of  the  later  post-exilic  congregations, 
leads  to  the  conclusion,  not  only  that  the  prophet  prophesied 
before  the  people  had  fallen  into  these  sins,  but  that  our  prophet 
spoke  to  encourage,  not  to  rebuke,  and  that  his  chief  aim  was,  in 
the  midst  of  surrounding  opposition,  to  inspire  Israel  to  finish  the 
house  of  the  Lord.* 

IV. 

THE    INTEGRITY    OF    ZECHARIAH    9-14. 

In  the  examination  of  the  two  hypotheses  (the  pre-exilic  and 
the  post-Zecharian)  which  has  hitherto  been  made,  it  is  clear  that 
in  order  to  find  any  really  suitable  historic  setting  for  these  last 

from  exile  must  have  taken  place  in  the  time  of  Ezra,  has  too  little  in  its  favor  to  warrant 
our  further  notice  here.  Cf.  B.  D.  Eordman's  article,  "  De  historische  .\chtorgrond  van  Zach. 
1-8"  (Theolog.  Tijds.  I.,  1895,  pp.  152-184). 

*  Stade^s  objection  (II.,  p.  16:1)  that  Doutoro-Zechariah  must  have  lived  after  Ezra 
because  though  sh(»wing  acquaintance  with  the  law  he  makes  no  attempt  to  introduce  it, 
assumes  that  no  propiiet  writiuK  before  Ezra  could  betray  familiarity  with  the  law  without 
at  the  same  time  showing  a  marked  tendency  to  extendi  its  influence  —  an  assumption  which 
is  entirely  unwarranted.  The  prophet's  m<»tivo  was  not  legal  or  political,  but  moral  and 
reli^ous,  and  as  such  was  in  perfect  keeping  witli  the  years  of  temple-building. 


76  THE    PROPHECIES    OF    ZECHARIAH 

six  chapters  of  Zechariah,  both  hypotheses  are  embarrassed  (espe- 
cially the  former)  by  the  necessity  of  separating  these  prophecies 
into  two  or  more  parts  and  of  assigning  them  to  different  periods. 
Individuals  differ,  however,  as  to  where  the  divisions  shall 
be  made.  Rubinkam  suggests  a  break  after  ch.  9:10;  Bleek, 
at  the  end  of  ch.  9;  Paulus  adds  10:1  to  ch.  9;  Grraetz  sep- 
arates ch.  14  from  the  rest;  Montet  and  Sharpe  divide  the 
whole  into  iive  distinct,  independent  oracles.  Staerk  excerpts 
two  small  sections  (11:4-17;  13:7-9)  from  the  body  of  the  proph- 
ecy and  assigns  them  to  a  different  age.  The  majority  are  con- 
tent with  an  almost  equal  division  in  two  halves  (9-11;  12-14). 
A  few  representatives  of  both  schools,  however,  being  unwilling 
to  carry  the  process  of  dissection  quite  so  far,  maintain  the  integ- 
rity of  9-14  at  any  cost.  These  are  Hitzig,  Rosenmliller,  Pressel, 
and  Davidson  of  the  pre-exilic  school ;  and  Stade,  Cornill,  Cheyne, 
Delitzsch,  Kuiper,  and  Wellhausen  of  the  post-Zecharian. 

1.  Against  Rubinkam,  who  divides  ch.  9:1-10  from  the 
rest,  and  observes  that  the  author  in  1  Maccabees  also  springs 
over  a  period  of  150  years,  from  Alexander  the  Great  to  Antio- 
chus  Epiphanes,  it  may  be  shown  with  Cornill,  (a)  that  the 
"brotherhood"  in  11:14  implies,  and  is  explained  by  ch.  9 
where  it  is  taken  for  granted.  (6)  And  with  Wellhausen  that 
the  "sons  of  Ephraim"  Du'j^  (10:7)  are  as  little  differentiated 
from  Ephraim,  as  the  "foal  of  an  ass"  (9:9)  from  ass;  which 
shows  a  similarity  in  mode  of  expression,  (c)  But  especially  the 
idea  contained  in  9:8,  that  "7io  more"  shall  Israel  be  disturbed 
by  the  enemy.  In  14:11  there  is  no  more  utter  destruction;  in 
14:21  no  more  Canaanites  are  to  be  found  in  the  house  of  the 
Lord;  and  in  13:2  no  more  idols.  (</)  Various  expressions  in 
language  bind  9:1-10  to  the  remaining  parts:  e.g.,  ni^in  tl'tiS 
(9:3;  10:5),n-J3p  (9:10,  13)  "1X3  (9:B;  10: 11;  11:3),  the  use 
of  D3  (9:7;  11:12),  also  -"JirTn  ->i«  (9:7)  quoted  in  12:5,  6 
with  an  implied  parenthesis  "of  whom  I  spoke  before."  (<?)  More- 
over, as  Ewald  observes,  the  paragraph  beginning  with  9:9  ends 
at  10 : 2.  Hence  the  proposed  division  of  Rubinkam  at  9:10  is 
practically  impossible. 

2.  Against  Bleek,  who  divides  ch.  9  from  ch.  10,  it  is  obvious 
that    the    blessings    alluded    to    in    9:17    are    closely   connected 


THE  PROPHECIES  OF  ZECHARIAH  77 

with  those  alhided  to  in  10:1,  2,  being  of  the  same  temporal 
character.  For  this  reason  Paulus  (III.,  p.  120  sg.)  joins  10:1 
to  ch.  9.  The  uncommon  expression  """i";23  occurs  in  9:15 
and  again  10:7.  Chapter  9:1'4-16  also  tinds  a  close  parallel 
in  10:5.  In  the  one  case  arrow,  trumpet  and  sling-stones  bring 
victory;  in  the  other,  superior  zeal,  for  they  tread  down  their 
enemies  in  the  mire  of  the  streets  (c/.  10:5  and  9:3).  Stade 
observes  a  further  characteristic  common  to  these  chapters,  viz., 
"to  announce  a  fact  and  then  give  reasons  for  it."  For  example, 
in  9 : 9  the  liberation  of  Zion  from  the  heathen  and  the  conversion 
of  the  heathen  to  the  Messiah  are  first  announced  and  then  the 
events  leading  up  to  it  are  described  (vs.  11-17).  So  in  10:6,  7 
the  return  of  Ephraim  is  first  announced  as  a  result,  and  then  the 
means  of  its  accomplishment  are  explained  in  vs.  8-12..  For  sim- 
ilar reasons,  Eichhorn  {Eiitl.  IV..  p.  479)  pronounced  chs.  9 
and  10  a  unit. 

3.  Against  Staerk,  who  separates  chs.  11:4-17;  13:7-9  from 
the  remaining  portions  by  a  space  in  time  of  150  years,  on 
the  following  grounds:  (a)  the  author  of  11:15,  he  says,  appears 
as  a  prophet,  but  the  author  of  13:2-6  will  not  be  a  prophet. 
(6)  The  author  of  11:4  sg.,  is  full  of  vain  scolding  and  is  pessi- 
mistic through  and  through;  Deutero-Zechariah,  on  the  contrary, 
wishes  only  to  comfort;  (c)  11:8,  14,  which  on  Stade's  hypoth- 
esis is  inexplicable,  he  claims  is  capable  of  explanation  when 
transferred  to  other  conditions  from  chs.  9,  10,  12-14.  But, 
(o)  Staerk's  division  is  based  on  the  false  view  of  Stade  that 
Deutero-Zechariah  is  only  a  scribe  and  will  not  be  a  prophet;  and 
(6)  on  a  completely  erroneous  interpretation  of  11:4-17,  refer- 
ring it  to  the  present  only,  whereas  it  is  an  allegory  of  the  past 
without  the  slightest  touch  of  pessimism,  (c)  Moreover,  the  claim 
that  11:8,  14  can  be  explained  out  of  Maccabean  conditions  is 
very  questionable,  as  no  one  has  ever  been  able  to  explain  satis- 
factorily the  "three  shepherds  cut  off  in  one  month"  (11:8)  on 
the  basis  of  any  hypothesis.  To  these  may  be  added  linguistic 
reasons  which  oppose  the  theory  of  Staerk,  e.  tj.,  n^lS  (9:11; 
11:10),  m5<  (11:3,  13),  nilXTTSn  (11:9;  12:14),  "Ifl^  (13:8; 
14:2),  □-nirf-l  (10:10;  13:7)"  'ii?-;  (11:13;  14:6),  ""SbS  HSn 
(11:6,  16;  12:2,  cf.  Eckardt,  p.  102);  the  use  of  certain  words  in 


78  THE  PROPHECIES  OF  ZECHARIAH 

a  good  sense  in  both  parts,  e.  [/.,  yiT  (10:9),  "pS  (12:4),  on  the 
one  hand,  and  iViT  ,  (13:7)  on  the  other;  and  of  the  Inf.  Abs. 
(11:17;  12:3),  etc.  We  accordingly  conclude  that  these  two 
sections  (11:4-17  and  13:7-9)  are  part  and  parcel  of  the  entire 
prophecy  (chs.  9-14),  or,  as  Kuiper  puts  it  (p.  130),  that  they  are 
the  indispensable  links  between  the  other  portions. 

4.  Against  Berfholdt,  Knohel,  Maurer,  Ewald,  Bleelc,  v. 
Orfenberg,  Kuenen.  and  oihers,  who  divide  chs.  9-14  into  two 
oracles  of  almost  equal  length  (9-11;  13:7-9  and  12-14). 
This  division  is  conditioned,  however,  by  the  successful  removal 
of  13:7-9  from  its  present  position  to  the  end  of  ch.  11  in  order 
to  furnish  the  first  oracle  with  a  suitable  conclusion.  Ewald 
was  the  first  to  make  this  transference;  followed  by  v.  Orten- 
berg,  Dillmann,  Reuss,  Stade,  Wellhausen,  Grtitzmacher.  and 
others.  Though  such  a  transposition  may  be  possible,  there  are 
serious  objections  to  it;  (a)  13:7-9  is  not  parabolic  as  is  11:4-17, 
but  prophetic;  (6)  13:7-9  treats  of  the  future;  11:4-17  of  the 
past  (c/.  Wellhausen,  p.  186);  (c)  13:7-9  is  joined  in  thought 
to  14:1,  2  sq.,  cf.  the  fractional  remnants  in  13:8  and  14:2.  {Cf. 
Schlatter,  p.  272;  and  Montet  p.  (58.  who  prefers  to  join  13:7-9 
and  14:1-21  together  as  one  oracle),  {d)  13:7-9  describes  in 
detail  the  results  of  the  siege  portrayed  in  ch.  12,  and  on  the 
other  hand,  prepares  for  the  apocalyptic  description  which  fol- 
lows in  ch.  14.  ((')  The  shepherd  in  13:7  is  the  Messiah-Shep- 
herd; the  "my"  standing  in  contrast  to  the  evil  shepherd  of 
11:15-17  and  also  the  false  prophets  of  13:2-6.  Compare  the 
expression  ni"'  Dilin  (13:3)  and  r^aJS  (13:9).  Hence  the 
present  position  of  these  verses  is  justified,  if  not  essential  to  the 
correct  understanding  of  the  prophecy  ((/.  Elmslie,  p.  332,  and 
Bruston,  p.  129).  Against  the  unity  of  these  two  oracles,  how- 
ever, our  opponents  present  four  different  lines  of  argument,  viz., 
language,  thought.  Messianic  expectation  and  historical  situation. 
(a)  Shjlc  and,  langnagc.  Kuenen.  Grutzmacher.  and  others,  note 
the  following  inconsistencies:  (a)  ^'^Vit^  Di^S  occurs  only  twice 
in  the  first  section  (9:16;  11:11),  but  14  times  in  the  second, —  a 
fact  which,  as  Eckardt  shows  (p.  100),  is  explained  at  once  (as 
also  n*~1 ,  used  15  times),  by  the  difference  in  subject  matter. 
(i5)"|V:i  is  used  for  Jerusalem  (9:9, 13);  whereas  TT^I  TT'Z.  stands 


THE    PROPHECIES    OF    ZECHAEIAH  79 

for  the  royal  house  (12:7,  8,  10, 12;  13: 1).  But  this  is  a  specious 
sort  of  fallacious  reasoning,  as  in  9:9,10  Zion  and  Jerusalem  stand 
side  by  side,  while  in  12: 10;  13: 1  Jerusalem  and  TTl  tV3,  are  dis- 
tinctly differentiated,  (y)  Certain  words  have  different  meanings 
in  the  two  sections ;  <^.</.,  n"l^X  (11:3)  glory,  (13:4)  mantle.  But  as 
Cornill  (p.  200)  shows,  tTTlS  of  11:3  and  n"l^i<  of  13:4  are  two 
entirely  different  words,  only  similar  in  sound.  Our  author  was 
fond  of  words  of  similar  sound,  e.  g.,  XITll  i^"in  (9:5).  also 
nirn  nirn  (9:5,  6).  and  D^n'Hit  (11:2)  with  Dn-^^N  (11:3). 
Again,  "^112  (9:3)  stronghold,  but  (12:2)  siege.  But  nr^'Z 
(9:3)  is,  as  Eckardt  points  out  (p.  100),  a  pun  with  "lij; .  b't! 
(9:4)  power;  (14:14)  wealth.  But  the  bT!  in  9:4  comes  from  the 
root  hTt  not  5'"  (Arab.  Sjj^  cf.  Socin's  Kurdische  Sammlunycu, 
I.,  297 )  meaning  a  small  frontier  wall  before  a  fortress  wall ;  whereas 
bTi  in  14:14  is  the  construct  state  of  b'H  (Arab,  j"^  ^  Ju^)  wealth. 
(S)  Certain  ideas  are  expressed  by  different  words  in  the  two  sec- 
tions: P.  (/.,"  pride"  is  expressed  in  11:3  by  "iXii,  in  12:7  by  IT^lSliri; 
and  "collect"  in  10:8.  10  by  'inp,  but  in  12:3;  14:2,  14  by  rCX. 
But  almost  any  author  ought  to  be  allowed  two  synonyms,  espe- 
cially when  attempting  to  express  slightly  different  shades  of 
meaning.  These  are  all  the  linguistic  inconsistencies  that  really 
exist  between  these  two  oracles.  On  the  other  hand,  the  similar- 
ities are  quite  important.  Eckardt  (p.  101)  points  out  the  fol- 
lowing: b-N  in  sense  of  destroy  (9:4,  15;  11:1,  9,  16,  but  also 
12:6),  ■'jT  in  a  religious  sense  (10:9;  13:2),  Z'Z''  in  passive  (9:5; 
12:6  probably  also  14:10,  11),  ri^3  Hiph.  (9:6,  10;  13:2), 
rCZrib'Z  (9:10;  10:3,  4.5;  14:2),  TOH  (9:4;  10:11;  13:7;  12:4; 
13^:6).  nsa  Niph.  (9:7;  11:9;  12^^:14).  ms  (11.1;  13:1.  rf. 
npS  12:4),  qb5<  (9:7;  12:5,  6).  From  this  list,  it  is  evident, 
that  the  style  of  the  two  sections  is  not  "entirely  different" 
(Griltzmacher,  p.  41);  but  rather  the  difference  is  due  to  the  ele- 
vated and  poetic  character  of  chs.  9-11,  which  naturally  affords 
a  greater  treasury  of  words,  and  also  to  the  author's  s[)ecial 
dependence  in  these  chapters  on  older  prophecy  [rf.  Kiiiper,  pp. 


80  THE    PROPHECIES    OF    ZECHAEIAH 

144-5).  (b)  Thouyld.  The  dcnkhcelden,  according  to  Kuenen, 
are  different  and  require  a  double  authorship.  Thus,  in  the  first 
section  there  is  no  storm  of  the  people  against  Jerusalem,  no 
complaint  against  false  prophets,  no  outlook  leading  up  to  the 
conversion  of  the  heathen ;  while  in  the  second  section  there  is  no 
mention  of  Ephraim,  or  of  the  return  of  the  exiles,  or  of  a  pun- 
ishment of  the  shepherds,  or  of  the  coming  of  the  Messiah.  But 
Kuenen  likewise  admits  of  no  unity  in  chs.  9-11;  e.g.,  9:1-5, 
8-10;  10:2,  10, 11:  11:4-14  are  pre-exilic;  but9:ll,  13;  10:6-9, 
etc.,  post-exilic.  For  similar  reasons  Montet,  (p.  68)  and  Sharps 
[Hist,  of  Hcbreio  Nation  and  Lit.,  1882)  separate  the  whole  into 
five  independent  units.  There  are,  however,  reasons  for  thinking 
that  the  author  of  both  sections  moved  in  the  same  circle  of  ideas ; 
r.  fj.,  in  10:  2  and  13:2  there  is  a  similar,  passing  allusion  to  idol- 
atry. In  both  sections  also  there  is  a  similar  use  made  of  the 
same  former  prophets.  Apocalyptic  wars  leading  up  to  Messianic 
times  are  portrayed  in  both  sections.  Old  proper  names  cling  in 
the  prophet's  memory,  e.  g.,  Hadrach  (9:1)  and  Hadadrimmon 
(12:11).  The  heathen  are  subjects  of  God's  mercy  (9:10;  14: 
16-19).  And  the  punishment  of  the  shepherds  in  11:15-17  is, 
as  Kuiper  insists,  not  entirely  absent  from  12:8  sq.  The  absence 
of  the  name  Ephraim  in  the  second  section  may  be  explained  in 
two  ways:  (a)  either  as  Hitzig  [Stud.  u.  Krit.  I.,  1830),  on  the 
ground  that  11:14  gives  up  the  hope  of  ever  uniting  the  two 
kingdoms;  or  better  (^)  as  Cornill  and  Kuiper,  on  the  ground 
that  ch.  12  is  a  necessary  conclusion  to  chapter  11.  For  the 
breaking  of  the  staff'  Beauty  (11:7,  10)  brings  the  nations  against 
Jerusalem;  and  the  breaking  of  Bands  (11:7,  14),  the  disappear- 
ance of  Ephraim.  11:10  prepares  the  way  for  chs.  12-14,  and 
11:14  for  12:1,2.  No  prophecy  could  well  close  with  11:17. 
But  further,  as  Delitzsch  observes  [Mess.  Proph.,  p.  219),  there 
is  a  "retrogressive  movement"  of  what  is  prophesied  in  both  sec- 
tions. "The  two  prophetic  images  in  chs.  9:11  are  a  hysteron 
proteron;  for  first  the  future  one  consumes  himself  in  work  for 
his  people,  and  tlien  is  raised  from  lowliness  to  a  kingdom  which 
rules  the  world."  Sudden  transitions  are  another  characteristic 
of  both  sections,  as  Stade  proceeds  to  show.  In  the  first  section 
the  author  passes  quickly  from  the  invasion  of  Syria,  Phcenicia, 


THE  PROPHECIES  OF  ZECHARIAH  81 

and  Pliilistia  by  a  temporal  king  (9:1-8),  to  the  coming  of  the 
Messiah  King  (9:9),  and  then  back  quite  as  abruptly  to  the  res- 
toration of  the  exiles  who  still  remained  in  captivity  (9:11).  In 
the  second  section  at  the  close  of  12:8  the  prophet's  mind  leaps 
from  the  time  when  the  nations  shall  be  repulsed  from  Jerusalem 
to  an  age  of  spiritual  deliverance  (12:10).  Again,  both  sections 
paint  shocking  pictures  of  the  destruction  and  wasting  away  of 
the  enemies  of  God's  people  (11:17;  14:12);  on  the  other  hand, 
the  hopes  of  both  sections  in  behalf  of  Israel  are  the  same,  (c) 
Messianic  expectation.  Grutzmacher  argues  (p.  42),  that,  because 
in  chs.  9-11  the  prophet  expects  an  individual  Messiah  —  a 
king,  who  would  bring  peace  to  the  people,  while  in  chapters 
12-11  the  coming  of  Jehovah  is  expected,  who  will  bring  salva- 
tion to  his  people  but  judgment  upon  the  heathen,  therefore  it  is 
"impossible"  to  suppose  that  both  sections  were  written  by  the 
same  author.  But  this  opinion  is  based,  (a)  on  a  transposition 
of  13:7-9  from  its  true  position;  (/8)  on  a  misunderstanding  of 
12:10;  13:1,  and  (y)  on  his  unwillingness  to  recognize  inch. 
14  an  apocalypse  of  the  future.  Hence  there  is  no  cause  for 
division  on  this  basis,  (d)  Historical  situation.  The  first  author 
names  Israel  and  Judah  side  by  side  (9:13;  10:6;  11:14);  the 
second,  only  Judah  and  Jerusalem.  In  the  first  section,  Syria, 
Phoenicia,  Philistia,  Greece,  Assyria,  and  Egypt  are  threatened; 
in  the  second,  "all  nations"  in  general  and  only  Egypt  by  name 
(Grlitzmacher,  pp.  42,  43).  But,  as  has  been  already  shown, 
these  peculiarities  are  due  to  other  causes  than  difference  of 
authorship. 

5.  Against  Graetz,  and  others  who  separate  chapter  14  from 
the  rest  of  these  prophecies.  This  is  the  most  difficult  problem, 
according  to  our  opinion,  in  these  prophecies.  The  difficulty  con- 
sists in  reconciling  the  two  pictures  of  the  nations  coming  up  against 
Jerusalem  in  chs.  12  and  14  with  unity  of  authorship.  Kuenen 
(p.  419)  does  not  hesitate  to  say,  that  12;4-fi  and  14:12-14  are 
onvereenigbaar.  Graetz  remarks  with  considerable  force  {JQR 
III.,  1891,  p.  208),  "if  both  chapters  refer  to  the  same  event  the 
prophet  should  have  begun  with  the  description  of  the  siege  given 
in  ch.  14,  which  is  far  more  dramatic  than  the  short  sentence 
'I  shall  make  of  Jerusalem  a  cup  of  confusion  for  all  nations' 


82  THE  PROPHECIES  OF  ZECHAEIAH 

(12:1)."  He  further  maintains  that  the  faint  resemblance 
between  these  prophecies  vanishes  on  a  closer  examination.  In 
eh.  12  Jerusalem  is  described  as  receiving  no  injury;  in  ch.  14, 
the  city  is  captured.  "How  can  utterances  so  different,"  Graetz 
asks,  "have  been  linked  together  in  one  prophecy?"  It  must 
be  confessed  that  the  contradiction  of  statements  in  this  case  is 
without  a  parallel  elsewhere,  not  even  between  Parts  I.  and  II. 
But  in  our  judgment  the  contradiction  is  superficial.  Chapter  14 
is  a  separate  oracle,  quite  independent  of  the  preceding  chapters 
written  by  the  same  prophet  but  later  and  under  different  circum- 
stances,—  very  possibly  shortly  before  the  dedication  of  the  tem- 
ple in  516  B.  C  This  is  evident  from  the  conclusion  of  chapter 
13:9,  "I  will  say,  It  is  my  people:  and  they  shall  shall  say.  The 
Lord  is  my  Grod,"  which  forms  a  most  suitable  ending  to  the 
former  oracles.  Chapter  14,  however,  belongs  to  chs.  9-13,  as  the 
language  witnesses;  e.  g.,  there  is  the  same  regard  for  Judah  in 
ch.  14  as  elsewhere,  tTiiri"'  DjI  (12:2;  14:14).  The  following 
expressions  occur  in  both  sections,  J^pS  (12:11;  14:4);  DoJa 
(14:17;  10:1)  ;"1i:' (11:13;  14:6)  ;ri3S  (10:4;  14: 10) ;  especially 
the  use  of  py'Z  near  nnrj  (9:15;  14:20,  pointed  out  by  Cornill, 
p.  200);  the  mention  of  the  " Canaanites "  (according  to  LXX.) 
in  11:7,11;  14:21;  the  use  of  Niphals,  e.  ^.,  ^in^  (13:8;  14:16), 
rrnS  (9:10;  13:8;  14:2)  and  Dnb  (10:5;  14:3,  14),  the  employ- 
ment of  "i^'Z  (9:2,  5,  9;  14:4,  14) ;  the  tendency  to  reminiscence, 
e.g.,  the  allusions  to  Josiah  and  Uzziah  (12:11;  14:5);  TM'H 
(9:8),  cf.  ri"""-  (14:15);  and,  finally,  the  author's  indifferent 
use  of  n-B'Jr-b'2  (12:2,  3;  14:12)  and  D-;i3ri-b3  (14:2;  14:16; 
12:9).  These  instances  are  enough  to  show  the  close  relation  of 
ch.  14  to  chs.  9-13.  And  when  it  is  remembered  that  we  are 
dealing  with  an  apocalypse,  all  apparent  inconsistencies  dis- 
appear. 

Accordingly  we  conclude,  in  view  of  the  above  observations, 
that  Zech.  9-14  are  from  the  same  hand,  though  we  admit  with 
Stade  (p.  307),  that  it  can  never,  of  course,  be  proven  that  such 
mnst  be  the  case.* 

♦  Cheyne  (JQI'.  I.,  1889,  p.  81)  declares,  that  "  with  perhaps  one  or  two  exceptions,  clie. 
9-11  and  12-1*1  are  so  closely  welded  together  that  oven  analysis  is  impossible." 


THE    PROPHECIES    OF    ZECHARIAH  83 

V. 

THE  RELATION  OF  CHAPTERS  9-14  TO  ZECH.  1-8. 

Though  tradition  has  never  without  exception  denied  the 
Zecharian  authorship  of  chs.  9-1-i,  yet  being  of  an  uncritical 
character,  it  behooves  us  critically  to  examine  into  the  juxtaposi- 
tion of  these  chapters  in  relation  to  Zech.  1-8.  What  especially 
warrants  our  investigation  of  this  relation  of  Part  II.  to  Part  I. 
is  the  fact  that  even  those  who  defend  the  integrity  of  chs.  9-14, 
deny  the  integrity  of  the  entire  book.  The  arguments  of  many, 
however,  are  too  often  overstated  and  too  minutely  drawn  out. 
Two  caveats  are  necessary:  (a)  objections  which  disprove  the 
unity  of  chs.  9-14  should  never  be  used  against  the  unity  of 
Zechariah  by  those  who  maintain  the  integrity  of  the  former;  and 
(b)  arguments  which  prove  the  unity  of  the  entire  Old  Testament 
are  of  no  value  in  substantiating  the  genuineness  of  chs.  9-14. 

I.  The  objections  to  the  Zecharian  origin  of  chapters  9—14. — 
1.  No  visions  are  found  in  these  chapters  as  there  are  in  Part  I. 
Though  this  is  a  very  common  objection  it  rests,  in  our  judgment, 
upon  a  false  basis,  viz.,  that  if  a  prophet  sees  visions  at  one  time 
and  records  them,  he  must  continue  to  do  so,  or  otherwise  keep 
silence.  Amos  1-6  and  Hos.  4-14,  however,  contradict  this  prin- 
ciple. Even  Zech.  7  and  8  do  not  contain  visions  and  yet  they  are 
not  denied  to  Zechariah  on  this  account.  Indeed,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  visions  actually  occur  in  Part  II.  only  of  an  historico-para- 
bolic  {e.g.,  11:4-17)  and  eschatological  character  (9:13-17,  12 
and  14).  As  Driver  allows  (p.  332),  "this  objection  in  itself  is 
not  incompatible  with  identity  of  author."  2.  No  dates,  as  in 
Zech.  1:1;  7 ;  7:1  and  Haggai.  But  dates  are  frequently  attached 
to  visions  in  the  Old  Testament  {cf.  Isa.  6:1;  Ezek.  1:1-3;  8:1; 
40:1;  Dan.  7:1),  whereas  oracles  {iX^'Q)  such  as  9-11;  12-14, 
are  always  (one  exception  only  in  entire  Old  Testament,  viz.,  Isa. 
14:28),  found  without  dates  as  here  {e.g.,  cf.  Isa.  13:1;  15:1; 
17:1;  19:1;  21:1,  11,13;  22: 1 ;  23:  1;  30:6;  Nah.  1:1;  Hab.  1:1; 
Mai.  1:1).  3.  No  Satan  is  mentioned  in  Part  II.  But  Satan 
is  never  mentioned  in  any  prophecy  of  the  Old  Testament  else- 
where than  in  Zech.  3:1,  2.     4.   No  infcrprrfiug  angel  in  9-14. 


84  THE    PROPHECIES    OF    ZECHARIAH 

But  this  is  a  most  superficial  objection  as  the  nature  of  the  oracles 
in  Part  II.  requires  no  interpreting  angel.  The  Angel  of  Jehovah, 
on  the  contrary,  is  mentioned  in  both  parts  (3:1  sq.,  and  12:8), 
— a  fact  which  is  far  more  noteworthy  (c/.  Griltzmacher  p.  31). 
Moreover  the  D^TIJIp'bS  of  14:5  are  universally  interpreted 
"accompanying  angels";  consequently  the  two  parts  of  Zech. 
from  the  standpoint  of  angelology  are  not  diverse  (c/.  1:9,  11; 
2:1;  3:7,  6:1).  5.  No  "eyes"  in  Part  II.,  as  in  3:9;  4:10,  as 
though  one  might  reasonably  expect  to  find  eyes  in  the  limbs  of 
a  human  body  as  well  as  in  the  head!  6.  Proper  names  are 
wanting  in  Part  II.,  e.  g.,  Zerrubabel  and  Joshua.  But  neither 
do  these  names  occur  in  chs.  7  and  8.  Joseph  and  Ephraim,  on 
the  other  hand,  which  are  not  mentioned  in  Part  I.,  are  synonyms 
of  Israel  (9:10,  13;  10:6,  7),  and  their  absence  proves  nothing. 
On  the  contrary,  Jerusalem,  Judah,  house  of  Judah,  and  Zion  are 
common  to  both  parts.  7.  The  sins  alluded  to  in  the  two  parts 
are  different  (Griitzmacher,  p.  32) ;  e.  g.,  theft  and  false-swearing 
in  5:3,  4,  enmity  toward  one  another  in  8:17;  while  in  10:2  seek- 
ing teraphim,  and  in  13:2  sq.,  false  prophecy.  But  these  sins  are 
not  of  such  a  nature  that  they  are  mutually  exclusive,  so  that  it 
were  impossible  for  them  to  have  existed  side  by  side.  What  is 
far  more  noteworthy  is  that  in  both  parts  the  prophet  declares 
that  these  evils  shall  be  taken  away  and  removed  out  of  the  land 
{cf.  3:9;  5:9-11;  13:1,  2).  8.  The  Messianic  pictures  are  dif- 
ferent. In  Part  I.  the  Messiah  is  n7j;2— Priest  (3:8,  9;  6:12,13); 
in  Part  II.  Tjb'J ,  king  (9:9,  10).  This  objection  is  urged  by 
Kuiper  also.  But  the  same  argument  weighs  quite  as  heavily 
against  the  unity  of  chs.  9-14,  which  Kuiper  passes  as  of  no  par- 
ticular value.  Objection  is  also  made  to  the  different  pictures 
given  in  Parts  I.  and  II.  concerning  the  conversion  of  the  heathen. 
But  in  both  parts  the  promises  are  eschatalogical  [vs.  Kuiper,  p. 
94) ;  in  both  the  heathen  worship  Jehovah  voluntarily  [vs.  Mon- 
tet,  pp.  89,  90),  and  in  both  the  language  and  thought  are  similar 
[vs.  Griitzmacher,  p.  32).  The  one  particularly  noteworthy  pic- 
ture common  to  both  parts  is  the  coming  up  of  the  nations  to 
Jerusalem,— "the  middle  point  of  the  world"  (2: 15;  8:20-23;  9:7; 
14:16-19,  cf.  Marti,  Sach.  p.  121).  9.  The  diction  and  style 
are  diverse;  Part  I.  being  prose,  but  Part  II.  poetry,  (in  truth. 


THE    PROPHECIES   OF    ZECHAEIAH  85 

however,  only  chs.  9, 10,  and  11: 1-3  are  poetic).  Special  empha 
sis  being  laid  on  certain  formulae  of  expression  characteristic  o 
one  part  but  disappearing  in  the  other.  For  example,  n^ni  occurs 
twice  in  Part  I.  (6:15;  8:13) ;  whereas  in  Part  II.  18  times.  But 
the  same  expression  is  used  to  prove  the  disunity  of  chs.  9-14 
(e.  f/.,  it  occurs  but  once  in  9-11,  but  17  times  in  12-14) ;  it  may 
be  still  further  employed  in  the  interests  of  Staerk's  hypothesis, 
for  the  ratio  here  is  1  to  17.  Hence  the  force  of  such  argumen- 
tation!    The  same  may  be  said  of  such  expressions  as,  "I7I!!<  TO 

niN22  nin%  ^snb-jj  ninn:;:  "^  ^3,  -b^  nin-'  inn  ^nn,  nissi 

T    ;  T       :  .  -  T   :  T   :  •  t        :  -    :  •    :  -  t    .-  t 

«"lt<1  ■'D'y ,  and  'pSirTbll  "ins;  .  The  prophetic  expression  DS3 
nin*'  occurs  frequently  in  both  parts,  but  being  so  common  a 
formula  in  the  prophets,  proves  nothing.  Also  SWH  Di^S ,  which 
occurs  but  3  times  in  Part  I.  (2: 15;  3: 10;  6: 10),  whereas  in  Part 
II.  19  times,  carries  no  force  with  it;  for  it  is  to  be  observed  that 
when  Zechariah  rises  to  an  apocalyptic  vision  he  uses  the  same 
mode  of  expression  (<■/.  nann  DT::^3,  8:23).  Again,  this  expres- 
sion is  used  by  Kuenen  to  disprove  the  unity  of  chs.  9-14  (for  in 
9-11  it  occurs  but  twice;  in  12-14,  on  the  contrary,  14  times); 
but  in  that  case  it  was  explained  by  the  difference  in  subject 
matter — an  explanation  which  holds  good  in  the  present  case 
quite  as  well. 

To  these  Eckardt  (p.  104)  adds  a  list  of  words  which,  in  his 
judgment,  are  irreconcilable  with  unity  of  authorship.  The  fol- 
lowing are  those  of  real  importance:  (a)  Certain  tcords  are 
employed  in  different  senses  in  Parts  I.  and  II.  Thus  mX^  is 
used  in  chs.  1-8  mostly  in  connection  with  prophetic  appearance; 
in  9-14,  never.  But  compare  12:4;  9:14  and  9:8,  which  last 
implies  all  the  visions  of  chs.  1-6,  "For  now  have  I  seen  (HK^) 
with  mine  eyes."  Further  Eckardt  observes,  that  Y"ilS!n"b|l  in 
Zech.  1-8  always  implies  "the  whole  earth"  ;  whereas  in  9-14, 
Palestine  only.  Bute/.  5:3  and  14:9  —  two  undeniable  excep- 
tions.    Likewise  "bij  exiles  in  6:10,  but  exile  in  14:2,  and  niPI 

T 

glory  in  6:13,  but  splendor  in  10:3.  One  of  Zechariah's  charac- 
teristics, however,  is  to  use  words  in  different  senses,  e.  <j.,  "33 
wing  in  5:9,  but  skirt  in  8:20;  nxtsn.  sin  in  13:1,  but  plague  in 
14:19;  Z^J)  midst  in   14:1,  but  battle  in  14:3;  T\T\  wind  (2:10; 


86  THE    PROPHECIES    OF    ZECHARIAH 

5:9;  6:5),  but  spirit  (4:6;  6:8;  7:12,  cf.  12:1;  13:2;  12:10). 
This  argument  also  is  used  against  the  unity  of  chs.  9-14,  which 
unity  Eckardt  defends,  (b)  Certain  words  in  Part  I.  are 
expressed  in  Fart  II.  by  means  of  synonyms.  Thus  ri'l^TT  rem- 
nant in  8:6,11,12  is  expressed  by  in;;  in  14:2.  But  cf.  nilNoJsn 
(11:9;  12:14).  Again  lysH  youth  (2:8),  but  D^n^nn  (9:17). 
But  cf  ^ysn  (11:16)  and  ^■^^^-'S?^  (13:5).  Further,  rn'Q'J  (6:11, 
14),  but  -ITD  (9:16);  t^p2  staff  (8:4),  but  bp"^  (11:7, 10,  14); 
•py  iniquity  (3:5,9),  but  nj^EjIl  (13:1);  bnj  possess  (2: 16;  8:12), 
but  &-^Tl  (9:4);  DM  desolate  (7:14),  but  ITiiJ  (11:2,3).  But 
the  use  of  synonyms  is  another  prominent  characteristic  of  Zech- 
ariah,e.^.,  Ipline  (1:16),  but  m-f  blin  (2:5) ;  n^S  temple,  1:16; 
3:7;  4:9;  7:3;  8:9),  but  b^^n  (6:12,  13,  14;  8:9);  T3'  stand 
(3:4),  but  n:2;  (6:5).  Cf.  the  idea  "without  walls"  in  niPB 
(2:8)  and  Tr«  T\'2T\  (2:9).  And  in  Part  II.,  mSS^H  plague 
(14:12,15),  but  ni^an  (14:19);  brii<  tent  (12:7),  but  Hj™ 
(14:15);  niy  flock  (10:3),  but  "X::  (9:16;  10:2);  nb'^  (11:1), 
but  "i""IJ  (14:10).  (c)  Syntax,  e.  g.,  the  Inf.  Abs.  which  in  Zech. 
'1-8  stands  sometimes  before  (0:15),  sometimes  after  (8:21)  the 
verb  intended  to  be  strengthened ;  in  9-14  on  the  contrary  always 
before.  But  the  Inf.  Abs.  occurs  but  twice  in  1-8,  and  but  three 
times  in  9-14  (viz.,  11:17  twice,  and  12:3),  a  fact  which  makes 
Eckardt's  argument  somewhat  specious  {cf  further  3:4;  7:5;  12: 
10).  Again  Eckardt  calls  attention  to  Zechariah's  fondness  for 
the  figura  etymologica,  or  object  accusative  in  narrower  as  well  as 
broader  sense.  But  the  same  is  true  of  chs.  9-14;  indeed  there 
are  exactly  eight  instances  in  Part  I.  and  seven  in  Part  II.:  ~^|5 
r^p  (1:2,  15),  nbilj  nx:p  J^jp  (1:14;  8:2),nTJT2Jp  -}-2^  (3:7), 
PlWp7p-by   -S^n  (5:11),  X2B'£il2  tOSir  (7:9;8:16);  and  in  Part  II., 

^p'''ip;(ii:i3),^n'3n  nas'inisan  (13:6),  nsap-:;  (14:12,18), 

yn  jyn  (14: 16,  18,  19).  In  this  connection  it  is  also  to  be 
observed  that  in  both  parts  the  definition  of  a  proper  name  is 
explained  by  means  of  a  common  noun  or  verb;  e.  g.,  .  .  .  '^O'^tTi 

•ijpirb  (3:1),  n?^^-; .  .  nrjis  (6:12)  and  li'i'Q  li::  "iznT  (9:3). 


THE  PROPHECIES  OF  ZEOHARIAH  87 

Further,  Eckardt  observes  that  in  Zech.  1-8  the  prophet  shows  a 
preference  for  nX  with  suffixes,  rather  than  for  verbal  suffixes.  But 
according  to  his  own  count  (pp.  97  and  lOG)  ITIX  with  suffixes 
occurs  in  Part  I.  10  times  and  verbal  suffixes  17  times;  whereas, 
in  Part  II.  the  proportion  is  6  to  22, — a  not  very  decisive  difPer- 
ence,  especially  since  the  proportion  in  Part  II.  proves  (as  seen 
above)  the  exact  opposite  of  Eckardt's  hypothesis,  viz.,  the  early 
post-exilic  origin  of  Zech.  9-14. 

These  are  the  chief  objections  to  the  genuineness  of  chs.  9-14. 
We  grant  that  there  are  differences  between  them  and  Zech.  1-8 
which  at  first  glance  are  striking,  yet  we  are  not  able  to  conclude 
that  these  differences  are  too  great  to  admit  of  their  integrity, 
nor  to  say  with  Rubinkam,  that  "what  is  most  characteristically 
present  in  1-8  as  a  whole,  is  most  characteristically  absent  from 
9-14  as  a  whole." 

II.  The  arf/Hineufs  hi  favor  of  the  Zechan'an  origin  of  chs. 
9-14. —  In  addition  to  what  has  already  been  claimed  in  support 
of  the  genuineness  of  these  prophecies,  we  offer  the  following 
considerations : 

1.  The  fundamental  ideas  of  hath  j)ar/s  are  the  same.  By 
this  we  mean  that  the  deeper  we  go  the  nearer  we  approach  unity. 
We  are  here  forced  to  differ  with  Driver  (p.  332)  who  claims  that 
"the  dominant  ideas  and  representations  of  chs.  1-8  are  very  dif- 
ferent from  those  either  of  chs.  9-11  or  of  chs.  12-14."  On  the 
contrary  the  fundamental  difference  between  Parts  I.  and  II.  is 
not  subject  but  nature  (c/.  Wellhausen,  Encyc.  Brit.).  Certain 
similarities  are  especially  noteworthy,  viz.,  (a)  An  iinusiadly 
deep,  spirifnal  tone  2)cri'ades  the  eniire  hook.  The  call  to  a  true 
repentance,  first  sounded  forth  in  the  introduction  (1:1-7),  is 
developed  more  and  more  throughout  the  entire  fourteen  chapters, 
e.  g.,  in  the  sanctifying  of  Joshua  (3:4),  in  the  message  to  Zerub- 
babel,  "  not  by  might  nor  by  power  but  by  my  S[)irit "  (4:  6) ,  in  the 
conditions  of  future  blessing  (6:15),  in  the  answer  to  the  Bethel 
deputation  (7:5-9;  8:10  sq.) ;  and  in  Part  II.  in  the  consecration 
of  the  remnant  of  the  Philistines  (9:7),  in  the  blessings  to 
Ephraim  (10:12),  in  the  l)aptism  of  grace  upon  Jerusalem 
(12:10),  in  the  fountain  for  sin  (13:1),  in  the  worship  of  Jeho- 
vah   (13:9),  in  the   living   waters  going   forth   from  Jerusalem 


0»  THE    PKOPHECIES    OF    ZECHARIAH 

(14:8),  and  in  the  dedication  of  everything  as  holy  unto  the 
Lord  (14:20,  21).  The  tone  which  tempers  these  prophecies  is 
an  extraordinarily  deep  and  spiritual  one.  (b)  There  is  a  similar 
atiitude  of  hope  and  exxteciation  in  both  jiarfs.  This  is  especially 
important.  For  example,  (a)  the  return  of  the  whole  nation  is  a 
prevailing  idea  of  happiness  in  both  parts  (2:6,  10;  8:7,  8;  9:12; 
10:6,  7).  (/3)  The  expectation  that  Jerusalem  shall  be  inhabited 
(1:16,17;  2:16;  8:3,8;  12:6;  14:11;  14:10).  (y)  And  that  the 
temple  shall  be  built  and  become  the  center  of  the  nation's  relig- 
ious life  (1:16,17;  3:7;  6:15;  7:2,3;  9:8;  14:20,21).  (8)  Mes- 
sianic hope  is  peculiarly  strong  in  both  (3:8,9;  6:12,13;  9:9,10; 
11: 12;  12: 10;  13: 1, 7-9).  («)  Peace  and  prosperity  are  expected 
(3:10;  1:17;  6:13;  8:12,19;  9:10,12,17;  10:1,7,8,10,12;  12:8; 
14:11;  14:16-19).  [i)  The  idea  of  God's  providence  as  extend- 
ing to  the  whole  earth  (1:14-17;  2:9,  12;  4:10;  6:5;  9:1,  8,  14; 
10:3,  5,  9, 12;  12:2;  12:3,  4,  8;  13:7;  14:3,  9).  (c)  The  proph- 
et's attitude  toward  Judah  is  the  same  in  both  parts.  It  is  an 
attitude  of  supreme  regard  for  Judah's  interests,  making  them 
second  only  to  the  capital  (2:2,4,  16;  8:19;  1:12;  cf.  8:13,  15; 
12:2;  14:14;  10:3;  12:4,6,7;  14:21;  c/.  9:9,  13;  10:6;  11:14; 
14:5).  (d)  The  j^rophet's  attitude  toward  the  nations,  the  enemies 
of  the  theocracy,  is  the  some  in  both  parts.  The  whole  assembled 
world  are  the  enemies  of  Israel  [cf.  Wellhausen.  p.  174).  But 
though  they  have  scattered  Judah,  Israel  and  Jerusalem  (1:11, 
and  are  still  coming  up  to  besiege  Jerusalem  (12:2;  14:2),  yet 
they  shall  be  joined  to  the  Lord  in  that  day  (2:15)  and  worship 
Jehovah  like  the  Jews  (8:20-23;  14:16-19).  These  are  all  strik- 
ing instances  of  similarity  in  the  fundamental  ideas  of  the  two 
parts. 

2.  There  arc  jwculiarities  of  iJiumjht  common  to  both  parts. 
(a)  TJw  habit  of  dwelling  on  the  same  thoiujht.  For  example, 
twice  in  rapid  succession  the  prophet  announces  Jehovah's  prom- 
ise to  Zion,  "I  will  dwell  in  the  midst  of  thee"  (2:14,  15).  Twice 
it  is  told  that  the  branch  shall  build  the  temple  of  Jehovah 
(6:12, 13).  Twice  the  nations  are  described  as  seeking  the  Lord 
of  hosts  to  pray  to  him  (8:21,  22).  And  twice  he  pictures  the 
scenes  in  the  streets  of  Jerusalem  in  that  day  (8:4,  5).  On  the 
other  hand,  in  Part  II.  twice  in  one  verse  the  prophet  declares, 


THE  PROPHECIES  OF  ZECHARIAH  89 

"And  I  fed  the  flock"  (11:7).  Twice  he  designates  the  parents 
of  a  false  prophet  as  "the  father  and  the  mother  who  bore  him" 
(13:3).  Twice  in  one  verse  he  predicts,  "and  ye  shall  flee" 
(14:5).  And  thrice  he  uses  the  expression,  "to  keep  the  feast 
of  tabernacles"  (14:16,  18,  19).  (b)  The  habit  of  expanding 
one  fundamental  thought  into  the  unusual  number  of  five  paral- 
lel clauses  (first  observed  by  Koster) ;  e.  g.,  6. -13, 
(a)  "And  he  shall  build  the  temple  of  the  Lord"; 
(/3)  "And  he  shall  bear  the  glory"; 

(y)  "And  shall  sit  and  rule  upon  his  throne"; 
(8)  "And  shall  be  a  priest  upon  his  throne"; 
(e)  "And  the  counsel  of  peace  shall  be  between  them  both" ; 
(c/.  9:5,  7;  1:17;  3:8,  9;  12:4).  (c)  The  habit  of  referring  to  a 
thouglit  already  introduced;  e.  g.,  to  the  Branch  (3:8  and  6:12); 
"eyes"  (3:9  and  4:10);  measuring  line  (1:16  and  2:5,  6);  idea 
of  choosing  Jerusalem  (1:17;  2:16  and  3:2);  removing  iniquity 
(3:9;  5:3  s^.  and  13:2) ;  measurements  (2:6;  5:24  and  14:10) ; 
colors  of  horses  (1:5  and  6:2,  6);  the  idea  of  Israel  as  a  "flock" 
(9:16;  10:2;  11:4  sg.;  13:7);  idols  (10:2  and  13:2);  of  "all 
nations"  (11:10;  12:3sg.,  and  14:2  sg.);  shepherds  (11:3  sg. 
and  13:7).  Also  the  "one  day"  of  3:9  and  the  day  of  atonement 
in  14:16.  The  author  of  Job  furnishes  in  this  instance  a  good 
parallel  (e.  g.,  Job  39;  9-11;  21-23).  (d)  The  use  made  of  the 
cardinal  number  ^"-two" ;  thus  two  olive  trees  (4:3),  two  women 
(5:9)  ;  two  mountains  (6:1),  two  staves  (11:7),  two  parts  (14:2,4) 
with  which  cf.  6:13;  9:12;  14:8.  (e)  The  resort  made  by  the 
prophet  to  symbolic  actions  as  a  mode  of  iiistructio7i;  e.  g.,  the 
coronation  scene  in  6:9-15  and  the  breaking  of  the  two  staves  in 
11:4-14.  (f)  The  habit  of  drawing  lessons  from  the  past;  e  g., 
1:1-7,  15;  7:7,11-14;  8:11,  13;  9:8;  10:1,  2;  11:4-17  {cf 
Ezek.  17  and  19  —  also  parables  concerning  the  past),  12:11; 
14:5,  3,  21.  All  these  are  peculiarities  of  thought  quite  charac- 
teristic of  our  prophet,  and  worthy  of  more  than  passing  notice. 

3.  Certain  peculiarities  of  diction  and  style  favor  unity  of 
axdhorship.  Eckardt  (p.  104)  frankly  allows  that  the  following 
word-list  has  weight  in  favor  of  the  unity  of  Zechariah;  thus  bb'JJ 
(2:13;  14:l),-l5ilJ  (8:10;  11:12),  npiT  (5:4;  8:  17;  10:2;  13:3^)^ 
Orn  (1:12;  10:6^)',  on:  (1:17;  10:2),  TCH  3:4;  9:7)  Toyn  (3:4; 


90  THE    PROPHECIES    OF    ZECHARIAH 

13:2).  For  "south"  both  parts  have  3j3  (7:7;  14:4,  10),  and 
also  -7rn  (6:6;  9:14)).  Especially  2Tr;  pass.  (2:8;  9:5;  12:6; 
c/.  I4I1O,  11),  "OJpn  with  b  and  Inf.  (6:7^;  12:9)  but  also  in  sense 
of  quaero  (8:2l',"22;  11:16);  and  the  very  noteworthy  ^1570 
niB'-^  (7:14;  9,  8).  These  coincidences  in  vocabulary  are  unde- 
niably  powerful  witnesses  in  favor  of  unity.  To  these  may  be 
added  the  following,  which  in  many  respects  are  quite  as  remark- 
able; e.g.,  nSC  (7:5;  12:10),  nb^rj  (1:8;  10:11),  ^^n  (3:3,4; 
14:4),n7pTi:  (2':14;4:10;10:7),V^"aJri(5:8;ll:12),r!t:3(l:16; 
12:1),  b^5'(3:2;  11:6),  blS-jir-b^l  "fr"by  (4:11;  12:67c/.  4:3; 
3:1),  ^in  0-2:10;  11:17),  -i^r^S  (2:li;  9  =  9),  -n  (4:7;  12:10), 
ly©  (8:16;  14:10),  ba:^  (6:13;  9:10),  n-Jli^  (9:16;  2:16;  18:5), 
'iO;  (4:9;  12:1),  i'JS  (5:3;  9:15;  10:2,778),  nyt-J  (6:10;  7:12; 
l7lO;  14:17;  cf.  12  privative  in  7:14;  9:8;  LXX.,  Lowe,  p.  82). 
The  use  of  the  expression  "one  toward  another"  in  its  different 
forms  r™-ns<  :2J'S<  (7:9,10)  and  ^TO-^S  ^^  (8:10, 16, 17;  3:10; 
11:6,9;  14:3),  n-«  for  the  indefinite  article  (5:7;  12:7).  The 
expressions  "holy  land"  (2:l(j)  and  "mount  of  Olives"  (14:4) 
nowhere  else  used  in  the  O.  T.  The  similar  modes  of  expression 
and  terminology:  (a)  ^"^TJ  (3:8)  and  "^  and  '^r^y  (13:7). 
(6)  •'n^H':  (8:23)  and  "C^r  (9:7).  (c)  rrJZLVJ']  nyTf  (4:2)  and 
lr\iMS'>r7.2  minE'if^J  (12:12).  The  author's  preference  for  and  fre- 
quent use  of  vocatives,  c.  (j.,  Zion  (2:11;  9:13),  great  mountain 
(4:7),  daughter  of  Zion  (2:14;  9:9),  O  all  flesh  (2:17),  Satan 
(3:2),  Joshua  (3:8),  O  sword  (13:7),  daughter  of  Jerusalem 
(9:9),  prisoners  of  hope  (9:12),  O  Lebanon  (11:1),  O  fir-tree 
and  Oaks  of  Bashan  (11:2),  O  poor  of  the  flock  (11:7).  Again, 
clumsy  diction  is  a  characteristic  of  both  parts,  c.  y.,  IV  (4  times 
in  1:17).  Uri  (4  times  in  8:19),  ]r,'j  (3  times  in  8:12),lnsiT 
(3  times  in  5:5-8),  "lab  (11  times),  n"E-JJ?p  (9  times)  and  t^^'ji'i 
(5  times  in  12:12-14).  Lastly,  the  .^cn'ptio  plena  and  Aci-iptio 
defecfiva  alternate  most  remarkably  in  both  parts:  thus  in  Part  I., 
DrriiaS  (1:2,5),  but  nrnhX  (1:4,6;8:14);  nnujr  (2:11;5:7), 
but  niTC^  (1:11;  7:7);  D^Xi::'  (3:3),  but  D-J^Sin  (3:4),  nisiypl 
(5:8),'  but  niS5  (5:7);  niS^^V  (5:9;  6:5),  but  nisr  (6:1); 
niltjy  (6: 11),  but  n'ntjyn  (6:14);  X^rb  (8:10),but  Xr  (2:7); 


THE    PROPHECIES    OF    ZECHAKIAH  91 

TO  (1:17;  2:17),  but  "!?  (8:20);  ''nTOV  and  ^ri-  (8:20).  In 
Part  II.,  Tli^nin  (9:5),  but  Wah  (10:5,11);  TT'^t  (10:4),  but 
"j;:b  (9:9);  TSn  (ll:10),but  nsri  (11:14);  nb-fi^T  j-oir  (12:8), 
but  nb'C^T  n-a^  (12:7) ;  ninsdTi  ,  but  also  nhs-oJTJ  (12:14).  in 
what  other  book  is  the  orthography  so  vacillating?  But  cf. 
further,  "msr^  and  "n-^3  (14:5),  istSSnS  Niph.  Inf.  (13:3)  and 
inSjSnS  (13:4)  also  Niph.  Inf.  from  the  same  root,  but  formed 
after  the  n"b  manner.  Likewise  DTizirni  (10:10;  13:7)  and 
Q-'rnn-din'l  (10:6);  and  -XSS  (9:16)  with  -s:2  rz'Z  (10:2).  In 
our  judgment  the  orthography  of  the  Book  of  Zechariah  is  one 
of  the  strongest  evidences  that  it  was  all  written  by  one  hand. 

4.  Zech.  1-8  shows  familiarity  with  the  same  books  of  j>i'oph- 
ecy  as  those  so  often  quoted  by  the  author  ofchs.  9-14.  (a)  Zech. 
1-8  sJioivs  familiarity  with  Ezekicl.  One  or  two  examples  will 
suffice.  In  Ezek.  35  the  announcement  "ye  shall  know  that  I 
am  the  Lord  "  occurs  in  vs.  9,  12  and  15.  The  same  thought  is 
found  in  Zech.  2:13,  15;  4:9;  (k15.  This,  however,  is  not  so 
noteworthy  in  itself;  but  when  it  is  observed  that  the  unusual 
idiom  212"^  ~CS'2  (Zech.  7:14)  is  found  in  essentially  the  same 
form  in  Ezek.  85:7,  it  becomes  more  striking,  as  it  illustrates 
the  fact  that  whole  sections  of  earlier  prophecy  are  reechoed 
in  the  book  of  Zechariah, —  and  no  book  more  naturally  than 
Ezekiel.  Especially  is  this  phenomenon  noteworthy  when  we 
remember  that  the  preceding  chapter  (Ezek.  34)  containing  the 
figure  of  the  shepherd  and  his  flock  was  found  to  form  the  basis  of 
the  allegory  in  Zech.  11:4-14.  The  natural  conclusion  is,  that 
Zechariah  was  familiar  with  Ezekiel,  and  that  only  when  both 
both  parts  of  his  prophecies  are  studi(^d  together  is  their  inter- 
relation explained.  For  other  instances,  (f.  Ezek.  11:19,  with 
Zech.  7:12  and  Ezek.  11:20  with  Zech.  8:8.  (b)  Zech.  1:8 
exhibits  acquaintanceship  tvith  Jeremiah.  Thus  the  inquiry, 
"would  it  be  marvelous  in  my  eyes?"  (Zech.  8:6)  seems  to  have 
a  basis  in  Jer.  32:27,  "Is  anything  too  hard  for  me?''  Also  the 
clause  "i^iy^a'an  yi73li-nS  ""m  (  Zech.  6:15)  is  found  in  Jer.  17:24. 

1;;.-  T  .  tt:'  ' 

But  especially  the  double  allusion  in  Zech.  to  the  "Branch"  (3:8; 
6:12)  which  has  its  foundation  in  Jeremiah's  "Branch  of  right- 


92  THE  PROPHECIES  OF  ZECHARIAH 

eousness"  23:5;  33:15).  Dependent  relations  also  exist  between 
Zech.  7:13  and  Jer.  11:11,  Zech.  7:14  and  Jer.  16:13,  Zech.  8:8 
and  Jer.  31:23.  Likewise,  according  to  Wildeboer  [Entstehung 
des  A.  T.  Kanons,  %  26),  between  Zech.  1:12  and  Jer.  25:11, 12; 
29:10,  etc.  (c)  Close  resemblances  also  exist  between  Zech.  1-8 
and  Isa.  40-66.  In  Isa.  48:20  Jacob  is  exhorted  to  "flee  from 
the  Chaldeans,"  so  Zion  in  Zech.  2:10,  cf.  Isa.  52:11.  The 
expression  "in  truth  and  righteousness"  (Zech.  8:8)  stands  in 
contrast  with  that  in  Isa.  48:1,  "not  in  truth  nor  in  righteous- 
ness.' Zechariah's  idea  of  fasting  (chs.  7  and  8)  that  it  termi- 
nates on  the  individual  and  is  of  little  importance  in  comparison 
to  executing  judgment  and  mercy,  is  but  an  enlargement  of  the 
idea  in  Isa.  58:3-7,  where  the  prophet  teaches  that  true  fasting 
consists  in  feeding  the  hungry,  clothing  the  naked,  removing 
burdens  and  letting  the  oppressed  go  free. 

5.  Finally,  the  history  of  modern  critical  opinion  is  a  tacit 
proof  of  the  unity  of  Zechariah.  As  we  have  already  seen,  the 
variety  of  critical  opinion  is  simply  marvelous.  To  almost  every 
century,  from  Amos  to  Judas  Maccabeus,  has  modern  scholarship 
assigned  chs.  9-14,  with  comparatively  little  unanimity.  This 
fact  in  itself,  in  our  opinion,  gives  room  for  doubt  as  to  the 
present  results  of  criticism;  but  on  the  other  hand,  teaches  the 
appropriateness  of  prophecy  to  speak  to  every  age. 

One  further  question  remains:  viz.,  how  came  chs.  9-14,  if 
anonymous,  to  be  added  to  Zech.  1-8?  Answers:  1.  Stade  replies 
that  they  were  not  intended  so,  as  chs.  9-14,  with  Malachi,  formed 
at  one  time  a  small  collection  by  themselves,  the  antithesis  of  Mai. 
1: 11  and  14:9  having  caused  their  separation  (c/.  Kuiper).  But 
this  explains  only  how  Malachi  and  Zech.  9:14  were  separated, 
which  is  altogether  gratuitous,  as  there  is  no  proof  whatever  that 
they  ever  formed  one  anonymous  collection  by  themselves.  The 
real  problem  rather  is,  how  came  chs.  9-14  to  be  added  to  Zecha- 
riah's prophecies?  2.  Cornill  (p.  204)  answers  that  "chs.  9-14, 
like  Malachi,  were  anonymous,  but  beiiig  less  of  a  unit  than  Mal- 
achi they  were  united  to  Zech.  1-8,  whereas  Malachi  was  set  ofp 
by  itself."  (So  also  Wildel)oer.)  But  this  only  shows  that  chs. 
9-14  are  not  a   unit  or  complete  in  themselves  {cf.  Kuenen,  p. 


THE    PROPHECIES    OF    ZECHAEIAH  93 

425;  Grutzmacher,  pp.  50,  51;  Kirkpatrick,  p.  -tS'i;  Cheyne,  JQR. 
I.,  1889,  p.  80).  We  grant  the  similarity  of  the  three  titles, 
9:1;  12:1  and  Mnl.  1:1;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  we  ask:  (a)  If 
chs.  9—14  are  of  pre-exilic  origin,  why  were  they  added  to  the 
post-exilic  prophecies  of  Zechariah  and  not  to  Obadiah  or  Jonah  ? 
(h)  If  of  GrsBco-Maccabean  origin,  how  found  they  place  in  the 
prophetic  Canon  while  Daniel  did  not?  Or,  if  this  is  not  so  diffi- 
cult, why  were  they  not  added  to  Haggai  instead  of  Zech.  1-8? 
(c)    What  real  evidence  have  we  that  12:1  is  not  original? 

SUMMARY    AND    CONCLUSION. 

Summing  up  the  results  of  our  study  of  the  prophecies  of 
Zechariah  we  conclude: 

1.  That  chs.  9-14  are  of  jjost-exilic  origin;  because  (a) 
the  exile  is  represented  as  an  event  of  the  past.  (6)  The  author 
dissociates  himself  from  pre-exilic  events,  (c)  Certain  passages 
promising  victory  and  temporal  prosperity  are  so  unlike  the 
prophecies  of  Amos,  Hosea,  Isaiah,  and  Jeremiah, — the  alleged 
contemporaries  of  the  authors  of  9-14 — that  they  could  only  have 
been  misleading  to  peoples  confronted  by  the  catastrophies  of 
722  and  586  B.  C.  {d)  The  development  of  the  Messianic  idea 
demands  a  late  date,  not  only  on  account  of  the  newness  of  the 
prophet's  pictures  and  his  attempt  to  unify  previous  predictions, 
but  also  on  account  of  the  highly  apocalyptic  character  of  these 
oracles  throughout,  [e)  The  manifest  dependence  of  the  prophet 
on  Ezekiel,  Jeremiah,  and  Isa.  40-00  corroborates  the  same  con- 
clusion. And  further,  because  all  the  passages  brought  forward 
in  favor  of  the  pre-exilic  origin  of  these  prophecies  can,  in  our 
judgment,  be  better  explained  in  the  period  after  the  exile;  e.  g., 
9:13,  concerning  the  "T  ^DS ,  which  is  confessedly  inexplicable  in 
the  eighth  century  B.  C. 

2.  TItat  these  chapters  are  not,  however,  late  post-exilic; 
because,  (r/,)  in  matters  pertaining  to  language  and  style  the  dis- 
tinctive characteristics  of  the  Hebrew  of  Grnieco-Mnccabean  times 
are  chiefly  wanting.  Thus,  there  are  few  Aramaisms.  The  scriptio 
plena  and  scriptio  defectiva  are  strikingly  confused.  The  late 
form  of  the  Pers.  Pron.  'IS  does  not  predominate  over  'jbS.  The 
ending  "li  is  used  but  twice  and  consequently  has  no  weight.     The 


94  THE    PROPHECIES    OF    ZECHAEIAH 

nota  accKsatict  tM^  with  suffixes  occurs  less  often  in  clis.  9-14 
than  in  Zech.  1-8.  The  article  is  not  specially  wanting;  neither 
is  the  use  made  of  the  Inf.  Abs.  nor  of  clumsy  diction  more  pro- 
nounced in  Part  II.  than  Part  I.  (h)  On  the  other  hand,  the 
historical  data  alleged  in  favor  of  a  Grseco-Maccabean  date  are.  in 
our  judgment,  quite  foreign  to  the  prophecies;  e.  g.,  (a)  14:9, 
instead  of  being  a  polemic  against  Mai.  1:11  by  a  writer  living  in 
Grecian  times,  as  Stade  claims,  is  a  simple  reflection  of  the  age  of 
Darius  Hystaspes  when  the  whole  world  was  practically  under 
one  sovereign.  (S)  12:2  6,  instead  of  making  Judah  fight  with 
the  enemy  against  Jerusalem,  represents  Judah  as  fighting  with 
Jerusalem  against  the  enemy,  (y)  12:12-14  divides  the  congre- 
gation into  civil  and  ecclesiastical  divisions,  and  portrays  not 
Greek  but  early  Persian  times  before  the  house  of  David  had 
degenerated.  (S)  Another  is  10:10,  11,  in  which,  as  in  Isa. 
27:12;  Ps.  83:9;  Mic.  5:  4,  i3,  there  is  absolutely  no  basis  for  inter- 
preting Assyria  and  Egypt  to  mean  the  Seleucidse  and  Ptolemies ; 
but  which,  on  the  contrary,  after  the  analogy  of  Ezr.  6:22  (c/. 
2  Kgs.,  23:29;  Ezr.  5:13;  Neh.  13:6)  implies  Persia  and  Egypt, 
(e)  Also  9:13  —  the  chief  passage  in  favor  of  a  late  date.  For, 
in  our  opinion,  the  reference  to  the  "T  '''23,  is  too  indefinite  to  be 
after  333  B.  C  Javan  experiences  defeat  instead  of  victory.  The 
context  does  not  suit  Grecian  times.  Furthermore,  the  subsequent 
description  in  9 :  14-17  is  apocalyptic. 

3.  Th((f  tlicse  chapters  had  their  origin  in  the  period  between 
518  and  516  B.  C.  For,  [a)  Javan  was  already  a  world-power 
before  the  beginning  of  the  5th  century  B.  C,  as  shown  by  both 
scripture  {rf.  Gen.  10:2;  Isa.  66:19;  Ezek.  27:13;  Joel  4:6), 
and  history;  r.  g.,  in  516  B.  C.  Darius  was  suddenly  called  to 
look  after  Persian  interests  in  Asia  Minor;  in  500  the  lonians 
revolted;  a  year  later  the  Athenians  burned  Sardis,  and  in  490 
Marathon  was  fought  and  Persia  was  defeated.  These  facts  show 
clearly  enough  that  Javan  was  a,  world-power  in  Darius'  reign. 
Our  prophecies  do  not  require  us  to  think  of  the  Greeks  as  the 
only  world-power  of  the  prophet's  day.  [h)  The  temple  was  still 
in  process  of  construction.  This  is  evident  (a)  irom  the  exultant 
Messianic  hope  and  expectation  which  chai'acterizes  these  prophe- 
cies, and  which  no  age  would  so  naturally  have  produced  as  when 


THE    PKOPHECIES    OP    ZECHARIAH  95 

the  temple  was  reaching  completion.  (/3)  From  the  hortatory 
tone  of  the  prophet,  which  was  especially  appropriate  in  this 
period, —  particularly  the  prophet's  frequent  reference  to  history 
as  an  argument  for  the  present,  (y)  From  the  fact  that  Israel's 
chief  interests  are  made  to  center  in  Jerusalem  where  the  temple 
was.  (8)  Certain  passages  are  best  explained  in  this  period  (e.  g., 
9:8,  10,  12:  10:2;  13:2-6;  14:9,10;  18:20).  (e)  The  absence 
of  all  allusion  to  any  single  event  after  the  dedication  of  the  tem- 
ple in  516  B.  C.  (c)  Again,  no  period  allows  of  the  unity  of 
chs.  9-14  so  well  as  the  years  518-516  B.  C. 

4.  That  these  chapters  stand  in  close  relation  to  chs.  1-8, 
having  most  prohahhj  been  composed  by  Zecliariah  himself.  The 
common  objections  to  the  unity  of  the  book  of  Zechariah,  viz., 
that  in  Part  II.  there  are  no  visions,  no  dates,  no  Satan,  no  inter- 
preting angels,  no  eyes,  etc.,  as  there  are  in  Part  I.,  have,  in  our 
judgment,  but  little  force.  Even  Eckardts  arguments  on  the 
basis  of  language  lose  their  value,  inasmuch  as  the  use  of  words 
in  different  senses  and  the  employment  of  synonyms  are  quite  as 
characteristic  of  each  part  separately  as  of  both  parts  together. 
On  the  other  hand  there  are  positive  reasons  for  attributing  these 
last  six  chapters  to  Zech,  viz.,  (a)  the  fundamental  ideas  of  both 
parts  are  the  same.  Thus  the  same  spiritual  tone  and  the  same 
attitude  of  hope  and  expectation  pervade  both  parts.  Likewise 
the  prophet's  attitude  toward  Judah  and  toward  the  enemies  of 
the  theocracy  is  the  same  throughout.  (&)  Certain  peculiarities 
of  thought  are  common  to  both  parts,  e.  g..  the  habit  of  dwelling  on 
the  same  thought,  of  expanding  it  into  separate  ideas,  and  of  refer- 
ring to  a  thought  already  introduced,  especially  the  habit  of  draw- 
ing lessons  from  the  past,  (c)  Certain  peculiarities  of  diction 
and  style  bind  Parts  I.  and  II.  together,  in  our  opinion,  quite  as 
firmly  as  those  which  unite  chs.  9-11  to  chs.  12-14,  e.  g.,  (o)  the 
words  2Ztj  and  "^Tl  for  "south"  in  both  parts,  wp2l  in  sense  of 
qiiaero,  and  with  ^  and  Inf.  in  the  sense  of  .tfiidco,  both  in  both 
parts,  etc.  (/3j  the  freqvient  use  of  vocatives  throughout,  (y)  The 
clumsy  diction  and  frequent  repetitions  in  i)()tli  parts.  (8)  But 
especially  the  alternating  use  of  scriptio  jdena  and  scriptio  defec- 
tiva,  which  characterizes  so  conspicuously  both  parts  and  renders 
it  almost  conclusive  that  one  author  wrote  the  whole  book. 


BSlfe65.4  .R66. 

The  prophecies  of  Zechariah  :  with 

Princeton  Theological  Semmary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00056  7810 


044BCE,,  289 

86-26-07  32180     MC 


